anyone know about church of christ?

[CMatt25]

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

Probaly never heard of it.

I lived in a small midwestern town where there was a conservative Church of Christ and a UCC congregation on the same street within walking distance. There was only a post office, pizza shop, a small town newspaper office, and a house or two between them. A DoC was in the next town over. There is according to the UCC website UCC churches in Mississippi, Louisiana, and TX. I didn’t check every southern state. Though I don’t know if CoC can be found in those southern states. I didn’t bother to look. I know where I live in FL there are all 3.

 

[solarguy17]

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

Actually if you look at the history of the Restoration movement you will see that the movement started by Alex Stone and John Cambell led to many different groups that we see today. The churches “started” by those and similar men existed under multiple names, include Christ’s church, church of Christ, church of God, disciples of Christ, to name a few. Once the first major schisms occurred early 1900’s most of the more liberal churches took the name Disciples of Christ and now don’t look anything like the churches that came from the restoration movement. Most other churches used the name churches of Christ. Since that time their have been more schisms, but no more names have been taken by an set of churches as a new name. Other then maybe the United Church of Christ, but I don’t actually know if they came from the Restoration Movement or not.

The reason that most preachers at churches of Christ prefer not use the title Reverend is because of respect for the Catholic belief. Reverend is used to describe many Catholic Priests (and non-Catholics) and to describe a church of Christ preacher with that title would be misleading as to what he actually is. This is similar to the reason generally leaders of the local church of Christ are called elders even those terms like Shepard, Bishop, and Pastor all refer to the leaders of a local church in various NT books. The terms Shepard is used to describe Catholic Priests and the Pope. The term Bishop is what Catholic call the leader of a Diocese. And the term Pastor is used by many churches to describe the overall Leader of a particular church. It is a choice to eliminate confusion and make sure that people understand that our leaders are not the same as the leader in the various other churches.

The individual church I attend generally will use any of the terms during worship but on all the printed documentation and in speaking with public, we refer to them as elders.

EDIT: Their are some that would be offended by being confused with a member of the Catholic or other religion’s clergy, but for the most part it is to attempt to stop confusion and misrepresentation.

 

[solarguy17]

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.

That is somewhat correct. The non-use of certain terms, Trinity for example, is partially for the members that have left various other churches to join the church of Christ. Some when they leave are uncomfortable with the use of terminology associated with that church and so out of respect for them, we tend not to use some of those terms, even if their is nothing wrong with the term itself.
Also, I have noticed that is mostly with in the older population of the church. The younger people seem to be more OK, not 100% but better about not being offended by simply word choice.

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.

Yes, we do use the only the word Christian to describe ourselves. And yes, we do use specific religions terms to describe other churches if they are mentioned. But that has to do more with being clear then a holier-than-thou attitude. At my particular church, some people are very careful to use the term “member of the church in XXXXX”" or “members of the church of Christ in XXXXX” rather then use the term “Christians in XXXX” because some people do find it offensive. I don’t believe any one that goes to a church of Christ wants to be offensive, but we also want to be accurate.

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.

I think if you look back the history of the Restoration Movement and the ideas that the leaders of the movement were espousing, you will see that the idea for it wasn’t to promote unity, but to purge out incorrect teaching and beliefs. If it was just to promote unity the results would have been very different and the resulting churches would have been a lot closer to the big Community Church movement, were no one and nothing is wrong and everyone is going to Heaven no matter what sins that committed.

 

[solarguy17]

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.

Just to be clear, there is a difference between the Disciple of Christ churches, the churches of Christ, and the United Church of Christ.

the churches of Christ are generally some of the most fundamental churches currently in existence.
the Disciples of Christ are more a of a mainline protestant church.
the United Church of Christ is a pretty radical liberal church, espousing thing like abortion and gay marriage.

I only point that out because I think a member of a Disciples of Christ church would be very upset if you lumped them together as well.

 

[solarguy17]

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”.

I think your friend might be a little on the hardline, he is correct that when the Bible is all that we need to determine doctrine and what God wants, however reading text written by others is never bad, if you remember that was written by man and not God.

And you are correct the Bible is some areas is very confusing, but I think that good because it encourage deep study and reflection to truly understand what God is saying.

I agree with him in that the Bible is all we need, and any topic that is religious or non-religious can be taken back to the Bible and the Bible can give guidance and instruction regarding. But it is helpful, in my opinion, to look at others writing or speak to others to get their point of view and make sure that you aren’t wrong by examining their beliefs and the reasons for those beliefs.

 

[solarguy17]

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,

I have done some interpolation on my own, but as far as how the early Catholic Church formed, thats pretty common knowledge (by historians). Notice how in the NT of the Bible, no part of it speaks about 1 Bishop being over multiple local churches, or 1 “Head Bishop” being over all churches.
I know that Catholic believe that Matthew 16:16 is the verses that prove Peter was the first Pope, but really look at Peter, was he ever called “Pope”, No. Was he ever called “Father”?, no. In fact after about the middle of Acts Peter isn’t mention at all and is never mention as being a Bishop or Elder at all. He is never called anything other then Apostle, like all the other Apostles.
If you take hard look at the history of the early church between 1st and 4th centuries, you will see a lot of confusion and change in order to protect the “soul” of the church. I would suggest finding a Catholic, non-Catholic, and even atheist historians when looking at this period. It is interesting the differences that are noted.

 

[solarguy17]

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.

Just as a suggestion for your husband. He should attend a church simply to make his dad feel better, and really it probably won’t do that. If you dad is truly interested in attending a church of Christ then he should be doing it for his own reasons, not simply to make someone happy, because in the end, the rift and animosity will just get worse.

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.

You are correct that is big issue. I has to do with what the proper use of God’s money is, should we be using his money for worship and spreading the gospel or do we also use it to entertain and edify one another on the church property. I understand why the church I go to removed the kitchen when they purchased the building we are currently in and I agree with it.
The idea is basically that the church building should be used for worship and learning activities. To introduce other activities in might diminish the importance of worship, this can actually be seen occurring in many newer churches, were the social activities seem to the the focus and worship is the background activity. I don’t believe this is the case with the Catholic Church but it is with others.
By not allowing a kitchen or other recreational activities, we are precluding that from being a problem. We also encourage our members to get together and be social as their houses and parks around town. And we do, in fact last night i was a member’s house for a graduation party in which about 1/3 of the church attended. It was good times.

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

The reason we don’t use denomination or sect is simply because we believe that in trying to be a church as close the 1st century as possible that we are an extension of that original church. Yes, separate by 2000 yrs but still trying to be one and same with the church shown in the Bible. Denomination infers a spilt from something and we don’t believe we split. Rather restored back to the church founded by Christ.

 

[solarguy17]

Sorry for the 6 or so posts in a row. But I simply don’t have time to check for posts to reply to every few hours. Ill be good to get on once a day and post answers or responses in a bunch of posts in a row.

Please note: I am not trying to convert anyone, just explain the belief. And also, I am one man, in his late 20’s going to church that in college town with a fairly large student population of members. We have about a 1/4 of church turnover every 4-5 yrs as a result. So we get a good mix of personal beliefs and a lot of visitors brought with the students. So we have to be extra cautious to avoid offending. If my views seems more tempered then the standard church of Christ person you know, it might be for that reason.

 

[JustaServant]

If you take hard look at the history of the early church between 1st and 4th centuries, you will see a lot of confusion and change in order to protect the “soul” of the church. I would suggest finding a Catholic, non-Catholic, and even atheist historians when looking at this period. It is interesting the differences that are noted.

I hate to burst your head full of “knowledge” but you have walked onto a forum filled with people who know their history and theology.
As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Church of Christ-er among them.
The timeline here is deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians **
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - **Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians **
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - **Luke **written
c. 60-70 - ***The Didache *is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy **
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

So tell us Protestants, why is it within a 100 year period, does the Church look so Catholic?

 

[JustaServant]

So, lets see.
The Ressurection is now 70 years old, and here is what Ignatuis says about the Eucharist:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.

. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore
Letter to the Ephesians 20.

 

[JustaServant]

And, oh dear…look at what the Didache says about Baptism:

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days
Didache 7:1.

 

[JustaServant]

And, oh, look what Clement of Rome has to say about Saved by Faith and Works, and Not Faith Alone:

“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. ‘For God,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30.

“For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 31.

“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.

 

[JustaServant]

Oh, and compare what Ignatuis says about the Eucharist:

…the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.

to what John wrote in his Gospel just twenty years before:

John 6 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

 

[JustaServant]

How did these early first generation christians describe themselves?

Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church
Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2.

When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole **Catholic Church throughout the world **– the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath
The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.

 

[JustaServant]

I have done some interpolation on my own,…

We have history on our side.
You have imagination.

 

[CMatt25]

Most other churches used the name churches of Christ. Since that time their have been more schisms, but no more names have been taken by an set of churches as a new name. Other then maybe the United Church of Christ, but I don’t actually know if they came from the Restoration Movement or not.

No, the UCC didn’t.

 

[CMatt25]

Just to be clear, there is a difference between the Disciple of Christ churches, the churches of Christ, and the United Church of Christ.

the churches of Christ are generally some of the most fundamental churches currently in existence.
the Disciples of Christ are more a of a mainline protestant church.
the United Church of Christ is a pretty radical liberal church, espousing thing like abortion and gay marriage.

I only point that out because I think a member of a Disciples of Christ church would be very upset if you lumped them together as well.

Hi Solarguy, welcome to the forum. I didn’t lump them together. In fact in an earlier post I specifically made the point you have. That there are differences between the 3. The DoC and UCC however do have an ecumenical partnership where they acknowledge each other’s sacraments and share clergy. I’m not certain I’d say the UCC espouses abortion, allowing women in a society of plural beliefs a legal choice on that particular issue however, yes. But that’s another thread entirely. God bless you on your faith journey and His peace be with you always.

 

[summer1052]

Good grief! I go away for a week to deal with a serious family crisis, and all y’all start a party without me! :dancing:

Solarguy and andrew, I think on a few points you are saying similar things in different ways, and maybe agree more than you realize. But then, being a woman, I have no authority over you, nor may I teach you anything. :

Solarguy, please recognize that andrew and I are older than you, and with our combined backgrounds (especially mine. Lord have mercy!) our perspective may be a bit broader and deeper, certainly different, than yours. That being said, your point of view is also very important in the discussion. In fact, you (inadvertently?) made my point about each congregation being autonomous, and varying from place to place. Did the preacher and Elders go to ACU? OCU? LCU? Moody? Bear Valley? It shades their POV. As I said, they multiply though division.

Ah, yes. The kitchen issue. What a tempest in a teacup that was! I watched one large congregation of 600 members split into 3 over that nonsense. One had a building without a kitchen, one built a building with a kitchen, and one built a building with a separate hall for fellowship and meals WITH a kitchen. Somehow I don’t think any of them made God happy, and I’m pretty sure OCD does not guarantee salvation. I suspect if they asked the Elder’s wivesfor an opinion, there would have been no split.

I heard a preacher specifically reject one cup at communion because “that’s what the Papists do.” I guess he forgot the scripture about Jesus took THE cup, passed IT, and said, “Take this, all of you, and drink from IT . . .” Being a poor carpenter, Jesus and the hicks he ate with didn’t have nice steel trays with 30-50 individual, disposable plastic taster-sized cups for their grape juice.

Random thought: Since the Last Supper was at a private house, and the first believers met on the First day of the week to pray and break bread in each others’ houses, doesn’t that mean there was a kitchen in the building? But I digress. Never mind.

Justaservant, yes, some basic scholarship will indeed unravel the theory of the Golden Thread quickly. And, yes, many c o C folks consider Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement, et al to be Catholic. So please understand that while you may be correct, by their standards, your argument only proves their point. One of the things that got me in very very hot bubbling boiling water was asking for historical or scriptural proof of the Golden Thread. And I was asking sincerely, not trying to rabble rouse. Boy, was that a mistake!

The UCC is a group that used to be called Congregationalists. They started off with a very strong missionary bent right from the get to. They also ordain women, accept gay congregants and clergy, and try hard to play nice with everybody. In my experience, always very nice people.

The Disciples and c o C officially split in the late 1890s and early 1900s, and my ancestors were some of the first to leave VA and TN and take the c o C to TX. More churches sprang up in the 1930s.

Let’s all remember that catholic means universal, and (Roman) Catholic means the universal church under the authority of Rome. But we’re all Christians, called to love, care for, and pray for one another via our salvation, through the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, with the glory of God the Father, forever and ever, amen.

Love,
Summer

 

[andrewstx]

I lived in a small midwestern town where there was a conservative Church of Christ and a UCC congregation on the same street within walking distance. There was only a post office, pizza shop, a small town newspaper office, and a house or two between them. A DoC was in the next town over. There is according to the UCC website UCC churches in Mississippi, Louisiana, and TX. I didn’t check every southern state. Though I don’t know if CoC can be found in those southern states. I didn’t bother to look. I know where I live in FL there are all 3.

There is a handfull of UCC churches in Texas, in the large cities that came from the Congregational tradition.

In central and south Texas there are few German UCCs that come from the E&R tradition.

But most Texans are fundamentalists, and reject the UCC out of hand as a liberal “Yankee” chruch, those who are even aware of it’s existence.

 

[andrewstx]

Actually if you look at the history of the Restoration movement you will see that the movement started by Alex Stone and John Cambell led to many different groups that we see today. The churches “started” by those and similar men existed under multiple names, include Christ’s church, church of Christ, church of God, disciples of Christ, to name a few. Once the first major schisms occurred early 1900’s most of the more liberal churches took the name Disciples of Christ and now don’t look anything like the churches that came from the restoration movement. Most other churches used the name churches of Christ. Since that time their have been more schisms, but no more names have been taken by an set of churches as a new name. Other then maybe the United Church of Christ, but I don’t actually know if they came from the Restoration Movement or not.

The reason that most preachers at churches of Christ prefer not use the title Reverend is because of respect for the Catholic belief. Reverend is used to describe many Catholic Priests (and non-Catholics) and to describe a church of Christ preacher with that title would be misleading as to what he actually is. This is similar to the reason generally leaders of the local church of Christ are called elders even those terms like Shepard, Bishop, and Pastor all refer to the leaders of a local church in various NT books. The terms Shepard is used to describe Catholic Priests and the Pope. The term Bishop is what Catholic call the leader of a Diocese. And the term Pastor is used by many churches to describe the overall Leader of a particular church. It is a choice to eliminate confusion and make sure that people understand that our leaders are not the same as the leader in the various other churches.

The individual church I attend generally will use any of the terms during worship but on all the printed documentation and in speaking with public, we refer to them as elders.

EDIT: Their are some that would be offended by being confused with a member of the Catholic or other religion’s clergy, but for the most part it is to attempt to stop confusion and misrepresentation.

Respect for the Catholic church? LOL.
Campbelltites I knew and who raised me considered the CC the end product of “total apostacy”, and view Catholics with utter hatred.

CofC members like to call Catholics idolators for having unworshipped statuary and icons in their churches. While cofC members really worship the bible as a paper and ink idol.

Not to mention they call priests “preachers” in print and sermons.

Respect, you can’t fool me.