Our Purpose

[marc]

As we begin to fellowship more and more with other churches, how does our purpose change?  I know that I'm a product of my time, and that the early RM vision wasn't quite as exclusivist as we have become, but is their stated purpose of creating a visible unity in a single church still achievable or even desirable?  If not, then what is our reason for existence?

[Livelysword]

As we begin to fellowship more and more with other churches, how does our purpose change?  I know that I'm a product of my time, and that the early RM vision wasn't quite as exclusivist as we have become, but is their stated purpose of creating a visible unity in a single church still achievable or even desirable?  If not, then what is our reason for existence?

Lively:  Maybe you should consider if you should be fellowshiping with other churches...   



Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


2Co 6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Eph 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

[marc]

Wrong thread, lively.  If you want to discuss "whether" please start another thread.

This one's about "what now?"

[HRoberson]

As we begin to fellowship more and more with other churches, how does our purpose change?  I know that I'm a product of my time, and that the early RM vision wasn't quite as exclusivist as we have become, but is their stated purpose of creating a visible unity in a single church still achievable or even desirable?  If not, then what is our reason for existence?

How you answer this question depends entirely on how you perceive the ideal, and your place in it. Personally, I am united with every other God-follower. I don't need a group of preachers to tell me that "now I am." If I am not included in their activities, that is their call, not mine. Fr'instance, Roman Catholics don't want me to take communion with them. OK, it's their loss as far as I'm concerned. As for me, I consider myself united with them.

Must we eliminate denominational structures to achieve unity? No, I don't think we do. We do need to practice a bit more openness and acceptance even in the face of denominational rules than we currently do.

[Livelysword]

Wrong thread, lively.  If you want to discuss "whether" please start another thread.

This one's about "what now?"

Lively:  I do not see what you are speaking of "whether"  like in as either or...  whether this or whether that...  at this time or at a time past... you spoke of time past, so the thread is not strictly about "what now"... but what was and where are we today.  I will not be opening another thread as I do not have or need answers to such a topic.  I was simply trying to answer a question you had on fellowship from what was in Campbell's time at the restoration, to what it is or should be now.  The bible is clear on what it should be at any time...  What you posted here now sounds like you did not want me to post the truth of the matter to your thread and such has made you unhappy and desire that I did not post to your thread... oh well, nothing in the gospel forbids me to reply with the truth.

[marc]

If you continue to take this thread off topic, I will split your replies into a separate thread.

[marc]

As we begin to fellowship more and more with other churches, how does our purpose change?  I know that I'm a product of my time, and that the early RM vision wasn't quite as exclusivist as we have become, but is their stated purpose of creating a visible unity in a single church still achievable or even desirable?  If not, then what is our reason for existence?

How you answer this question depends entirely on how you perceive the ideal, and your place in it. Personally, I am united with every other God-follower. I don't need a group of preachers to tell me that "now I am." If I am not included in their activities, that is their call, not mine. Fr'instance, Roman Catholics don't want me to take communion with them. OK, it's their loss as far as I'm concerned. As for me, I consider myself united with them.

Must we eliminate denominational structures to achieve unity? No, I don't think we do. We do need to practice a bit more openness and acceptance even in the face of denominational rules than we currently do.

The question, then, remains:  why do we exist as a separate fellowship?  What value is there in our existence?

I'm not saying there is none, just trying to pinpoint what is there.

[Bocephus]

As we begin to fellowship more and more with other churches, how does our purpose change?  I know that I'm a product of my time, and that the early RM vision wasn't quite as exclusivist as we have become, but is their stated purpose of creating a visible unity in a single church still achievable or even desirable?  If not, then what is our reason for existence?

How you answer this question depends entirely on how you perceive the ideal, and your place in it. Personally, I am united with every other God-follower. I don't need a group of preachers to tell me that "now I am." If I am not included in their activities, that is their call, not mine. Fr'instance, Roman Catholics don't want me to take communion with them. OK, it's their loss as far as I'm concerned. As for me, I consider myself united with them.

Must we eliminate denominational structures to achieve unity? No, I don't think we do. We do need to practice a bit more openness and acceptance even in the face of denominational rules than we currently do.

The question, then, remains:  why do we exist as a separate fellowship?  What value is there in our existence?

I'm not saying there is none, just trying to pinpoint what is there.

That's what people feel comfortable in?  I think the unity thing has long been gone.

[HRoberson]

As we begin to fellowship more and more with other churches, how does our purpose change?  I know that I'm a product of my time, and that the early RM vision wasn't quite as exclusivist as we have become, but is their stated purpose of creating a visible unity in a single church still achievable or even desirable?  If not, then what is our reason for existence?

How you answer this question depends entirely on how you perceive the ideal, and your place in it. Personally, I am united with every other God-follower. I don't need a group of preachers to tell me that "now I am." If I am not included in their activities, that is their call, not mine. Fr'instance, Roman Catholics don't want me to take communion with them. OK, it's their loss as far as I'm concerned. As for me, I consider myself united with them.

Must we eliminate denominational structures to achieve unity? No, I don't think we do. We do need to practice a bit more openness and acceptance even in the face of denominational rules than we currently do.

The question, then, remains:  why do we exist as a separate fellowship?  What value is there in our existence?

I'm not saying there is none, just trying to pinpoint what is there.

I perceive denoms as matters of preference, and as valid witnesses to those with whom they connect. Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches offer some valid perspectives for greater Christendom. So what are they?

-- a history of knowing the text in its detail
-- a commitment to congregational existence as a valid expression of faith
-- an acceptance of human voices as sufficient for praising God
-- a polity that values community and consensus rather than authoritarian prerogatives
-- a commitment to rehearsing the Lord's Supper weekly and thereby providing a concrete communal sign of that sacrifice and love
-- a commitment to the beautiful expression of believers' baptism as a sign of surrendering to God

We are moving toward a more open acceptance of others as we learn that others can and do understand Scripture differently and can still love God - and be accepted by Him. We are learning to continue to hold our convictions and yet work with others in reconciling the world to God and relieving suffering.

I see no requirement or preference to meld all believers into one style of organization, or conform all liturgies to one norm. We are united if we consider ourselves united even if we don't speak the same religious language, or dress our clergy in the same sorts of clothes, or send our offerings to the same missions boards.

[Snargles]

Here in middle-left (from a geographic point of view) Appalachia I can't see anybody fellowshipping any of what are still called "denominations", spoken with the same tone of voice used for discussing Michael Vick and dog fighting. In these parts membership in a local ministerial association is considered starting down that slippery slope to abandoning the faith. I think we should do more to work with Christians who aren't us but in these conservative backwaters it will take years for that to happen.

[zoonance]

As we begin to fellowship more and more with other churches, how does our purpose change?  I know that I'm a product of my time, and that the early RM vision wasn't quite as exclusivist as we have become, but is their stated purpose of creating a visible unity in a single church still achievable or even desirable?  If not, then what is our reason for existence?

Lively:  Maybe you should consider if you should be fellowshiping with other churches...   



Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


2Co 6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Eph 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Are you suggesting that these verses support your view that he is speaking of other believers?  Have you actually read them? How in the world do compare fellow noncoc believers in Christ with "unfruitful works of darkness", "unbelievers" or "those who do not serve Jesus Christ"?    It helps to at least be credible.    Even if you can slip in denominationalism into Romans 16:17 (assuming of course that it isn't you and I that are actually causing the divisions and offenses contrary to the teaching which the believers in Rome had learned) you still have to allow Romans 12 - 16:16 to define who he was talking about!    Only then can you claim to have rightly divided the word of God.

[marc]

Here in middle-left (from a geographic point of view) Appalachia I can't see anybody fellowshipping any of what are still called "denominations", spoken with the same tone of voice used for discussing Michael Vick and dog fighting. In these parts membership in a local ministerial association is considered starting down that slippery slope to abandoning the faith. I think we should do more to work with Christians who aren't us but in these conservative backwaters it will take years for that to happen.

Not sure where middle left Appalachia is, but here in the WV foothills, we are seeing unity meetings among various churches and other such activity.  Our own singing group regularly goes to other churches.  Times are changing in this neck of the woods.

[Snargles]

Here in middle-left (from a geographic point of view) Appalachia I can't see anybody fellowshipping any of what are still called "denominations", spoken with the same tone of voice used for discussing Michael Vick and dog fighting. In these parts membership in a local ministerial association is considered starting down that slippery slope to abandoning the faith. I think we should do more to work with Christians who aren't us but in these conservative backwaters it will take years for that to happen.

Not sure where middle left Appalachia is, but here in the WV foothills, we are seeing unity meetings among various churches and other such activity.  Our own singing group regularly goes to other churches.  Times are changing in this neck of the woods.

I'm next door in Ohio. I am amazed that your congregation is so progressive. What churches has your singing group visited? Have any of your neighboring congregations criticized you for associating with denoms?

[marc]

We're off the radar, but the church I used to attend has been criticized big time for their unity meetings with a Church of God, Methodist, and Baptist church.

Our group has visited a Church of God, a Baptist, an independent church, a couple of Methodist churches, and an Apostolic church.  They just got their first invitation to a local Church of Christ (although they did sing at one in St. Louis in August.)

[Snargles]

There may be hope for us yet. If nothing else it shows the world we aren't quite as weird as they think. Keep up the good work.

Better   

Than