A Different "Who Are We" Webpage

[DCR]

Here's the connection (found in the Wiki):

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) maintains full communion with the UCC

I think in this case, the comparatively "liberal" DoC found much in common with the UCC.  So, they proclaim unity with the UCC.  One issue is the acceptance of homosexuality, which the UCC has been pretty open about.  And, some DoCs are now even going that way.

There's a DoC church near where I live.  They recently put up a sign that says something about that they are a place of "tolerance."  I don't want to read too much into it.  But, I can't help but wonder if there are undertones there about this issue.  Ironically, they recently celebrated some anniversary (I think 175th) of that congregation's existence.

175 years ago, they would have been a church in my "fellowship" (if you will).  An interesting historical fact is that a non-instrumental CofC a little further down the road was actually started by this same congregation, as a church planting, if you'll believe that. 

Then, I guess the history unfolded as it did everywhere else.  The original congregation was a little on the "progressive" side, I suppose... first bringing in the IM (not that there's anything wrong with it ) and supporting missionary societies (which were the hot button issues in the late 1800s)... then I suppose they evolved with the rest of the churches that became part of the new DoC denomination in the last century.

There aren't many "Christian Churches" that are of the more conservative ICC/CofC fellowship in my area.  Mostly, if a church is a "Christian Church," then it has "Disciples of Christ" in parentheses on the SOF.  There are NO "instrumental" SOF "Churches of Christ" in my area.  If a church is CofC, then that means non-instrumental in my area (though, more progressive "non-IM" CofCs have started using IM in very special occasions, but not regularly).

[Bocephus]

Here's the connection (found in the Wiki):

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) maintains full communion with the UCC

I think in this case, the comparatively "liberal" DoC found much in common with the UCC.  So, they proclaim unity with the UCC.  One issue is the acceptance of homosexuality, which the UCC has been pretty open about.  And, some DoCs are now even going that way.

There's a DoC church near where I live.  They recently put up a sign that says something about that they are a place of "tolerance."  I don't want to read too much into it.  But, I can't help but wonder if there are undertones there about this issue.  Ironically, they recently celebrated some anniversary (I think 175th) of that congregation's existence.

175 years ago, they would have been a church in my "fellowship" (if you will).  An interesting historical fact is that a non-instrumental CofC a little further down the road was actually started by this same congregation, as a church planting, if you'll believe that. 

Then, I guess the history unfolded as it did everywhere else.  The original congregation was a little on the "progressive" side, I suppose... first bringing in the IM (not that there's anything wrong with it ) and supporting missionary societies (which were the hot button issues in the late 1800s)... then I suppose they evolved with the rest of the churches that became part of the new DoC denomination in the last century.

There aren't many "Christian Churches" that are of the more conservative ICC/CofC fellowship in my area.  Mostly, if a church is a "Christian Church," then it has "Disciples of Christ" in parentheses on the SOF.  There are NO "instrumental" SOF "Churches of Christ" in my area.  If a church is CofC, then that means non-instrumental in my area (though, more progressive "non-IM" CofCs have started using IM in very special occasions, but not regularly).

When I lived in Michigan there was a ICC/CofC college, and most of the SOF Cofc's were instrumental.  In Montana, there aren't many RM churches at all.  There are places you may have to travel 60-100 miles or more to get to a non-instrumental CofC (or instrumental for that matter) if you don't live close to a decent sized town.

[James.]

But that's different from saying the UCC was a product of the RM. 

[DCR]

But that's different from saying the UCC was a product of the RM. 

Exactly.  The movement that gave rise to the UCC goes back to before what we consider to be the RM... back in the days of James O'Kelley.  There was probably some cross-pollination between the movements in the early days.  But, it pretty much stops there, besides the fact that the DoC has ties to the UCC.

[stevehut]

"RC" as in Roman Catholic Church?  Or, did you mean "RM" (Restoration Movement)?  Sorry, all these abbreviations...

Ummm...yes, RM, to be precise.

[blituri]

K.C.Moser has had his second coming: he was the focus at the ACU Lecturship Summit this year. The particular focus is on righteousness so having a copy of his Way of Salvation hugly challenged in marginal notes in my youthfulness, I decided to post a bit.

Moser, like all theologians, believes that they are guided by the Spirit "person" to take one part Bible (out of context) and 9 parts human reasoning (?) and come up with the wackiest views I have ever read. No wonder he was an outcast back then and nothing has changed other than the once Christian Colleges have become "Sumps of Prelatial pride" as Tennet said of Harvard in its log building days.

I have looked at Romans which--like any Calvinistic Baptists-lifts statements without understanding the context or looking at the Old Testament where Paul often points. Not even Luther would agree.

A second one is a quick review on the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit where he again lifts out of context and has no historical scholar agreeing with him. He depends on Adam Clark for the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a "second work of Grace" and a life-long direct guidance.  He appeals to J.W.McGarvey out of context and who repudiates him in context.

Then, he asks Can the Gospel Be Obeyed.  He says, NO.  Since, he concludes you can only trust a PERSON and not commands, one cannot obey the gospel.  He then interprets OBEDIENC of the Gospel as BELIEVING the gospel.

I have posted some links on my home page piney.com

Even Rubel Shelly makes fun of the quality of the new Phds and they are a joke. Olbricht also does a wacko take on the Declaration and Address by quoting qotes but not the document.

[Jimmy]

  In Montana, there aren't many RM churches at all.  There are places you may have to travel 60-100 miles or more to get to a non-instrumental CofC (or instrumental for that matter) if you don't live close to a decent sized town.

There are places in Montana you may have to travel 60-100 miles or more to get to a town; any sized town.  Fantastic concept. Such places are nearly gone.