History between Christian Churches and Churches of Christ

[DCR]

If I understand it correctly, both of these churches are supporting a church plant which teaches (or practices?) something that neither one of them believes in.  Or am I missing something?  

Only notofmyown can give all the details of this situation and can answer your question.  But, understand the historical connection of the two congregations, and it might make a little more sense.  One is apparently an Independent Christian Church, and the other is a Church of Christ (non-instrumental).  These churches have a common history in the Restoration Movement.  But, there was a split in the movement over 100 years ago over what was allowable in public worship assemblies, in addition to some other issues.

The folks from the CofC are used to no instrumental music being used in worship.  The folks from the CC always had this though.  Many from these two groups, in recent years, have desired to explore a restoration of their once lost unity.

However, in order to do that, some differences in the ways they do things have to be reconciled.  Perhaps, this smaller merger assembly is an experiment toward that possibility.

[blituri]

These churches have a common history in the Restoration Movement.  But, there was a split in the movement over 100 years ago over what was allowable in public worship assemblies, in addition to some other issues.

Not even close to the truth: The Disciples of Christ came out of the Cane Ridge group and was very charismatic.  The winners were basically Anglican (ie Catholic) based as they organized. The Church of Christ was one of many groups formed after they were freed from the government. The Church of Christ was Presbyterian based but rejected Calvinism.

While there was no doctrinal commonality but the idolatry of UNIONISM, a FEW men from both groups agreed to do things together in 1832. That was no bigger than those who met and it was rejected by most Church of Christ preachers.  Any attempt to do things together ended in in 1845 with the beginning of Baptist organization which formed a society in 1849. 

Some Disciple churches added instruments in the 1850s and were repudiated by Church of Christ writers immediately.  The Disciples continued and promised to "take Tennessee for the society and organ party within 5 years." That proves that the church of Christ was NOT of them

In 1906 the Disciples tried to do a preacher count of all Churches of Christ: it was the census taker who knew better and allerted David Lipsomb. The only thing that happened was the Disciples were informed.

By that time they had a massive denominational structure ready:



It was only in 1927 that the Christian Church began to sect out of the Disciples. It is barely possible that the Church of Christ did NOT sect out of the Christian church which did not begin to exist for another decade. That secting out of the Disciples of Christ was not completed until the restructure in 1968 and some say until 1971.

As Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians the Church of Christ had EVER used instruments.

My prime example of UNITY happened in Seattle: the church I helped expand has a campus minister who became preacher without portfolio after I left. He lied about every "musical" passage in the Bible and bullied and threatened any of the OWNERS who opposed him. His intention was to add instruments which he did: they were a defacto Christian church.  He wrote a book about how to achieve unity: just force the non-instrumentalists to add instruments THEN they could be accepted by the Christian Church. To their credit the Christian church group volunteered to give up instruments but the MOTHER was determined to be the worship leader.

So, there has been and will never be any joint work except that one hired by the Church of  Christ has betrayed the church and is therefore PRO instrumental. ALL of the joint conferences seeking UNITY has had a church of Christ INSTRUMENTALISTS debate a Christian Church Instrumentalist.

I could achieve peace with Russia in a moment: just turn my coat and strike the flag.

[DCR]

These churches have a common history in the Restoration Movement.  But, there was a split in the movement over 100 years ago over what was allowable in public worship assemblies, in addition to some other issues.

Not even close to the truth

No... actually very close to the truth.  There's an example right in my community of two churches... one a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)... and the other a Church of Christ who came from the same original group:

The History of Bellevue Christian Church

1832 is an early recorded date of the original Christian Church in the old Ninth District of Davidson County. The first congregation was located in the area know as Linton or South Harpeth. Lintons, Allisons and Joslins were prominent families on the rolls. Alexander Campbell preached here briefly and baptized a great many converts, some of whom were great grandparents of those who have reported orally in recent years stories passed down to them. Among these were Newsoms and Howes, as well as others pioneers.

In 1854 two congregations sprang from this original group: one coming to Pasquo, now the Pasquo Church of Christ, the other the Bellevue Christian Church.

Source:  http://www.bellevuechristianchurch.org/history.html

There was one original group who was visited by Alexander Campbell before the 1850s.  Two congregations sprang from the original group... which are now today... one, a Disciples of Christ Christian Church... and the other, a Church of Christ.

That's just one example.  Many other examples can be cited in other places.  Your idea that these were two separate groups all along who only briefly met for unity talks in the 1830s and 1840s is inaccurate.  Campbell's people and Stone's people may have met and cooperated in this way.  However, in my neck of the woods, Campbell had far more influence than Stone did anyway.

Interesting also that some independent Christian Churches (who use instrumental music) actually go by the name "Church of Christ."

Furthermore, I know of at least one congregation in my area that was historically called a "Christian Church," yet they never used instrumental music.  Then, in the 1910s, they changed their name to "Church of Christ," since that was the thing to do at the time.

Hendersonville Church of Christ Timeline 

1893 April Camp Meeting held by James A. Harding; 18 members began to worship. Latter part of year-brick building constructed on property at 315 East Main Street.
1917-1919 Name changed from Christian Church to Church of Christ to distinguish from those bearing the original name who were using a musical instrument to worship.

Source:  http://www.hendcoc.com/about-us.php

(Not sure why I bother, as if it will make a difference.  But, oh well.)

[DCR]

(The above posts were split from the "integration" thread.)

[DCR]

Just looking at the history page for another DoC congregation in town (here in Nashville):

Vine Street Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

A HISTORY OF VINE STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Vine Street Christian Church is one of Nashville’s oldest religious bodies and the source of many other congregations.  It had its beginnings on July 22, 1820 as the Baptist Church of Nashville. In April of 1826, Philip Slater Fall was elected pastor of the congregation, moving from Louisville, Kentucky.  At his first service he inaugurated the practice of weekly communion, a clear indication that the principles and practices of Alexander Campbell were a part of his thinking and leading.

Vine Street Christian Church lists its formal founding as May 24, 1828 when the members adopted a resolution that nullified its former rules and doctrines and stated, “...we take the New Testament as the rule of our faith and practice, and will form such rules from it for our worship and government as may be consistent with its spirit and meaning, and with the peace and good order of the Church.”  At that time, the congregation is said to have numbered 218, 117 of whom were African American. By 1830, five members who did not agree with the reform principles withdrew and reconstituted themselves as the Baptist Church, which is today First Baptist Church of Nashville.

An African American Sunday school class of the congregation was reorganized as a congregation in 1859 and exists today as the New Covenant Christian Church.

David Lipscomb, a member of this congregation since the 1850’s, withdrew his membership in 1882 when Vine Street began supporting missionary societies. As editor of The Gospel Advocate, Lipscomb wrote in opposition to missionary societies, instrumental music in worship, Sunday schools, and open communion, so that in 1906 the Churches of Christ were listed separately for the first time in the Federal Religious Census. Vine Street Christian Church remained supportive of missionary societies and open communion. It installed its first pipe organ in 1897 and has consistently had a strong music program.

So, in this case, we have this RM church where David Lipscomb himself was a member.  He withdrew in the 1880s when Vine Street started supporting "missionary societies" (which was one of the controversial issues of the day).  Then, the church apparently started using IM in worship with the installation of the pipe organ in 1897.

They are now a Disciples of Christ church.

[Lee Freeman]

All of the Churches of Christ in Lauderdale County, Alabama were at one time Christian Churches. That was the standard designation until the 1906 split. Occasionally churches would refer to themselves as Churches of Christ, using the terms Disciples, Christian and Church of Christ interchangeably, however they were widely known as the Christian Church. And before the 1832 union (at least before their expulsion from the Baptists) Campbell's Churches considered themselves Baptist, and were often referred to as Reforming Baptists.

At least one congregation here-Republican-was founded by Stoneite evangelists Elder James Matthews and Ephraim D. Moore. This church is now Stony Point Church of Christ.
The Stoneites founded dozens of churches in NW AL and Southern Middle Tennessee that sided with the Church of Christ in the split.

When Campbell's Disciples and Stone's Christians formally united, they set aside many differences of opinion. For example, Stone disagreed with Campbell on several items, among them the precise nature of the atonement, the precise nature/relationship of the members of the Trinity (Stone's Trinitarian views were somewhat ill-defined at first), the necessity of baptism (at the time Stone's churches left it up to each individual member, though most accepted immersion by 1827), what name to wear (Christian or Disciple-Campbell favored Disciple, believing Christian to be a term first given believers in Antioch as a sign of derision and insult ), etc. And leaders like Tolbert Fanning inherited theological views from both Stone and Campbell-such as the pacifistic, counter-cultural, premillennialism he inherited from Stone, and the restorationist ideal he inherited from Campbell. A good example is BF Hall. In 1825 Dr. BF Hall, a dentist and Stoneite evangelist, preached at Republican Christian Church in Lauderdale County, AL and converted a young Tolbert Fanning. Fanning himself was a restorationist and conservative for the most part (save his premil views, though most people in the movement at the time were premil.) and is considered an icon in Churches of Christ. He founded the Gospel Advocate, a fairly conservative paper, of which David Lipscomb (another icon in churches of Christ) was co-editor, in the 1850s. Dr. Hall was convinced about adult believer's baptism via reading Campbell's debate with Macalla. So Hall (and Fanning) were influenced by both Stone and Campbell. Richard Hughes has traced the influences of both Stone and Campbell on Church of Christ preachers. But Bro. Ken thinks Hughes is a revisionist historian.

I don't know where Brother Ken gets the idea that most Church of Christ preachers rejected the 1832 union. Perhaps he'd be good enough to post sources for this assertion. Because from that time forward they considered themselves one united movement. Otherwise, how could there have been a split in 1906 if there was no real union to begin with?

Its simply not true that the Disciples were/are solely responsible for the division while the Church of Christ was/is innocent. Leaders on both sides of the issues drew lines in the sand. A few, like Elder TB Larimore, who held conservative views and "officially" affiliated with Churches of Christ, nevertheless refused to make IM (or the other issues) into a test of fellowship. Larimore categorically refused to waste time preaching on such issues; he wouldn't preach for or against them, believing them untaught issues of scripture to which each Christian was entitled to his/her opinion. He stuck to preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified and how to live a Christian life.

Nor is it true that the Disciples, coming out of Cane Ridge, were very charismatic. They weren't. In fact, after Stone willingly conceded leadership of the Movement to Campbell, Campbell's theology on most issues prevailed-the exceptions being that Campbell was postmillennial while most everyone else (even in his own group) was premillennial, or leaned that way, and some churches later opted for the instrument, which he opposed.

But Campbell himself only referenced IM one time that I'm aware of, and objected to its use, not strictly on theological grounds, but on the grounds that any church desiring to use an organ was a worldly church.

The first church to introduce an instrument into the assembly was the Midway Church of Midway, Kentucky. Dr. Louis L. Pinkerton did so, he said, to augment the singing, which was terrible. Interestingly enough, in his Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Robert Richardson praises Pinkerton as an evangelist an educator but says absolutely nothing about his introducing the organ at Midway.  Perhaps this was because Richardson himself favored the organ? According to his biographer he favored IM.

The reasons for the 1906 split were much more complicated and nuanced than Brother Ken would have us believe.

Pax.
 

[Bocephus]

  And before the 1832 union (at least before their expulsion from the Baptists) Campbell's Churches considered themselves Baptist, and were often referred to as Reforming Baptists.

Realistically, they still are.

[blituri]

Maybe you want to get factual and tag this "History between Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ." Wikipedia summarizes what is clear to any reader of history. The Christian Church (organized) did not exist in 1906. Here is the only sectarianizing going on since The Church of Christ had no organization and an infiltrated and diverted Vine Street doeth not unity make.

The Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DoC) parted ways due primarily to disagreements on the denominationalization of the DoC. The split occurred as local congregations refused to take part in rapidly developing extra-congregational organizations that eventually evolved into a General Assembly, which is what drove the Restoration Movement in the first place. They were also disturbed by what they saw as liberal/modernist influences on DoC teaching. This came to a head at the 1926 DoC Convention in Memphis, Tennessee.

The official DoC split from the Restoration Movement Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ is difficult to date. Suggestions range from 1926 to 1971 based on the events outlined below:

    * 1926: The first North American Christian Convention (NACC) in 1927 was the result of disillusionment at the DoC Memphis Convention.
    * 1930s - 1940s: Symbolic differences and disagreements flourished.
    * 1955: The Directory of the Ministry was first published listing only the "Independents" on a voluntary basis.
    * 1968: Final redaction of the Disciples Year Book removing Independent churches
    * 1971: Independent churches listed separately in the Yearbook of American Churches.

Because of this separation, many Independent Christian Churches/churches of Christ are not only non-denominational, they can be anti-denominational, avoiding even the appearance or language associated with denominationalism holding true to their Restoration roots.

During this time the DoC made several attempts to take over facility and property ownership from many Independent congregations and Independents attempted to take over facility and property ownership from many DoC congregations. In this 45+ years both types of congregations were forced to seek legal representation. Representation was necessary in order to maintain ownership of their property and to prevent eviction and forfeiture of assets.

If there is any UNITING the Christian Church should RETURN to the Disciples "Organ and Society party" which only a few Reformers ever joined.  Please get honest: The Church of Christ DID NOT sect off the Christian Church.

[Lee Freeman]

Ken, Wikipedia is not a valid source for accurate history. No, the distinct denomination calling itself "Disciples of Christ" to differentiate it from the Independent Christian Church and the Church of Christ did not exist until after 1906. But then, if you want to get technical, the Church of Christ (certainly as we all know it) didn't exist until 1906, either.

But as I said, anyone who's studied Stone-Campbell history knows very well that in 1832 the Stone and Campbell branches of the Movement united and that until the 1906 split the congregations comprising this new, united Movement used the names Church of Christ, Christian Church, Reforming Baptiss, Disciples, and Reformers interchangeably, however the common designation used most often was Christian Church.

There was a "standard" orthodoxy among all the Stone-Campbell Churches for most of the 19th century despite occasional differences over IM, the missionary Society, cooperative meetings, the new German Higher criticism, etc. A few ofthem were:

a) They were mostly all pacifistic, premillennial, and anti-slavery.

b) Did not believe in located, salaried, preachers

c) Observed communion as the central focus of the Sunday assembly.

d) Believed in the all-sufficiency of the Bible for the faith and worship of the church

e) Believed in congregational autonomy, with congregations overseen by elders, assisted by deacons.

e) Believed in baptism by immersion of believing adults.

f) Taught that the Holy Spirit played no role in conversion, but was imparted at baptism.

The modern Church of Christ looks very little like the Church that the Campbells "founded." Much of the beliefs and practices modern CoCs simply take for granted were unknown to Campbell & co.

Pax.