Is there a RM church of any stripe like the following in Dallas?

[mccritchen]

I"m moving to Dallas in a few months and will be looking for a church.  I have never regularly attended a RM movement church.  In my life I have only been in 2 services at 2 different churches - one I liked and one I didn't like.

I have read all the Campbell and Stone writings.  I especially liked Stone's Polar Star article.  I want to get along with everyone regardless of their theology, but, because of my theology, sometimes people don't want to get along with me.  So, I'm looking for a particular kind of church that believes the following (or at least accepts my view without pounding me from the other side):

Note: I'm not looking to argue with anyone about my beliefs.  I'm just looking to see if there is a church in Dallas like this.

1. Trinitarian - even though a great mystery to me, I'm more like Campbell than Stone on this one - though I have great appreciation for Stone's exposition of some of weaknesses of how this is typically viewed.
2. Amillennial - I'm more like Campbell than Stone in this regard - though Campbell was probably a Post-millennialist.
3. Non-penal-substitution theory of Atonement - I'm DEFINITELY more like Stone than Campbell in this regard, though I think Moral Exemplar has problems.  I believe more along the lines of Incarnational or Inheritance theories.
4. "Charismatic" - I despise the crazy extremes of "charismania," but I do believe Stone was right in his belief that God was going to restore the operation of the gifts - thought I believe all of the gifts were not done away with at any point in time and have been available to whosoever will covet them properly.
5. Instrumental - this is my "cup of tea" - it may not be others.

So, I'm 50-50 on my major beliefs: 2 like Campbell and 2 like Stone.  If I could find a RM church like the above, I would be thrilled.

If anyone knows of one like this, please let me know.

[Jimmy]

You might check out the following:

Bruton Road Christian Church  10910 Bruton Rd
Dallas, TX  75217     

Clearview Christian Church  2534 W Illinois Ave
Dallas, TX  75233
(214) 337-2727     

Rylie Christian Church  10710 Mulberry St
Dallas, TX  75217
(214) 286-4339     

Valley View Christian Church  17601 Marsh Lane
Dallas, TX  75287
(972) 245-8822 

I do not have personal knowledge about any of them, but they are listed in the Christian Church Today web site.

[DCR]

I"m moving to Dallas in a few months and will be looking for a church.  I have never regularly attended a RM movement church.  In my life I have only been in 2 services at 2 different churches - one I liked and one I didn't like.

I have read all the Campbell and Stone writings.  I especially liked Stone's Polar Star article.  I want to get along with everyone regardless of their theology, but, because of my theology, sometimes people don't want to get along with me.  So, I'm looking for a particular kind of church that believes the following (or at least accepts my view without pounding me from the other side):

Note: I'm not looking to argue with anyone about my beliefs.  I'm just looking to see if there is a church in Dallas like this.

I've never been in the Dallas area to know anything personally.  But, Richland Hills Church of Christ is in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (closer to Fort Worth).  It's a large CofC that was historically a cappella, but caused a stir recently among CofCs when they added some instrumental services.  I believe they have some services that are still a cappella and some instrumental now, depending on your taste, I suppose.

Some response to your comments...

1. Trinitarian - even though a great mystery to me, I'm more like Campbell than Stone on this one - though I have great appreciation for Stone's exposition of some of weaknesses of how this is typically viewed.

Regardless of what Campbell said versus Stone, I think just about all RM churches are by and large Trinitarian.  There may be some issue among some with using the word "Trinity" but only because the word doesn't appear in the Bible (especially among those with a particularly strict sola scriptura point of view).  But, I believe any mainstream RM POV would agree with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in content (even if some choose to quibble over semantics).  There may be some renegade dissenters perhaps though.

2. Amillennial - I'm more like Campbell than Stone in this regard - though Campbell was probably a Post-millennialist.

I'm not sure about all the Christian Churches, but most Churches of Christ are amillennial.  There are a handful that are Premill, but they are pretty rare and only exist in isolated pockets, as far as I know.

3. Non-penal-substitution theory of Atonement - I'm DEFINITELY more like Stone than Campbell in this regard, though I think Moral Exemplar has problems.  I believe more along the lines of Incarnational or Inheritance theories.

I confess that I need to read up on the terms used in your statement here to even know what you're talking about.  But, okay.  

4. "Charismatic" - I despise the crazy extremes of "charismania," but I do believe Stone was right in his belief that God was going to restore the operation of the gifts - thought I believe all of the gifts were not done away with at any point in time and have been available to whosoever will covet them properly.

This depends on what you have in mind.  Admittedly, most of the RM has been of the cessationist POV.  Many teach that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the completion of Scripture after the first century.  But, as with many topics in the RM, opinions vary on this.

5. Instrumental - this is my "cup of tea" - it may not be others.

I'm from a non-instrumental CofC background.  So, I have an engrained appreciation for unaccompanied congregational singing.  If you're interested in exploring non-IM CofCs at all, you might try different ones, since like music, there can be good congregational singing and sometimes not as good... which depends on how well the congregation sings as well as how well the congregation is led in singing/worship.  Some variation has come about even in our circles in recent years in this area, as many even non-IM CofCs have gone with a more contemporary flavor (singing a cappella arrangements of CCM music) and employing the use of "praise teams" to help lead congregational singing, even if instruments haven't been adopted.

So, I'm 50-50 on my major beliefs: 2 like Campbell and 2 like Stone.  If I could find a RM church like the above, I would be thrilled.

If anyone knows of one like this, please let me know.

Best wishes on your quest.



(By the way, I moved your thread from the CofC forum into the general RM forum, since your quest is more general to the RM than just the non-IM CofCs.)

[s1n4m1n]

If you are looking for a true Campbell/Stone church you might as well give up now as no such animal exists.

An Assembly of God church may fit you more than anything else, but unless you are very vocal about your beliefs, you could probably go anywhere you feel most comfortable worshiping.

Finally, why limit yourself to the Restoration Movement? Just for kicks try: The Chapel of the Cross.

Ken

[marc]

I was thinking Richland Hills, but their website mentions the penal-substitution idea of atonement, unless I'm misreading.  That surprised me a bit, since many of the "progressive" churches seem to be moving away from that.

[farouk]

Dunno.

But TX is a big enough place for all sorts, and Dallas / Fort Worth is a big place in TX.

So it wouldn't surprise me at all if there is.

[HRoberson]

Roman Catholic - there are tons in the Dallas area.

They probably won't agree with the non-penal-substitution requirement, but they probably won't card you over it either.

[mccritchen]

I was thinking Richland Hills, but their website mentions the penal-substitution idea of atonement, unless I'm misreading.  That surprised me a bit, since many of the "progressive" churches seem to be moving away from that.

I had to smile when I read that.  Progressive means "promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods."  Penal Substitution is the "progressive view," since it never appeared anywhere in history until the Reformation.  Seems like going to an older theory of atonement would be regressive! <I'd put a laughing smiley face here if I knew how to do it!>

Anyway, thanks to all who have commented.  I appreciate all the answers.

[marc]

That's why I used the quotes.  Honestly, though, progressive usually relates to recent movements and often ends up going back to earlier ideas to correct recent reactions, kind of the way that postmodernism and premodernism have much in common.

[zoonance]

I"m moving to Dallas in a few months and will be looking for a church.  I have never regularly attended a RM movement church.  In my life I have only been in 2 services at 2 different churches - one I liked and one I didn't like.

I have read all the Campbell and Stone writings.  I especially liked Stone's Polar Star article.  I want to get along with everyone regardless of their theology, but, because of my theology, sometimes people don't want to get along with me.  So, I'm looking for a particular kind of church that believes the following (or at least accepts my view without pounding me from the other side):

Note: I'm not looking to argue with anyone about my beliefs.  I'm just looking to see if there is a church in Dallas like this.

1. Trinitarian - even though a great mystery to me, I'm more like Campbell than Stone on this one - though I have great appreciation for Stone's exposition of some of weaknesses of how this is typically viewed.
2. Amillennial - I'm more like Campbell than Stone in this regard - though Campbell was probably a Post-millennialist.
3. Non-penal-substitution theory of Atonement - I'm DEFINITELY more like Stone than Campbell in this regard, though I think Moral Exemplar has problems.  I believe more along the lines of Incarnational or Inheritance theories.
4. "Charismatic" - I despise the crazy extremes of "charismania," but I do believe Stone was right in his belief that God was going to restore the operation of the gifts - thought I believe all of the gifts were not done away with at any point in time and have been available to whosoever will covet them properly.
5. Instrumental - this is my "cup of tea" - it may not be others.

So, I'm 50-50 on my major beliefs: 2 like Campbell and 2 like Stone.  If I could find a RM church like the above, I would be thrilled.

If anyone knows of one like this, please let me know.

I'm reminded of a friend of mine who had a long list of 'have to have' when searching for a spouse.   He was completely serious.  That chick didn't exist.   The list always gets longer in our search for the perfect that all you end up is alone and lonely.     Course, the opposite is "Does she have a pulse?"  and that isn't an appropriate checklist either!


I have no idea what some of this means, so now I need to be educated on who else I can't fellowship with.

[mccritchen]

I'm reminded of a friend of mine who had a long list of 'have to have' when searching for a spouse.   He was completely serious.  That chick didn't exist.   The list always gets longer in our search for the perfect that all you end up is alone and lonely...<snip>...I have no idea what some of this means, so now I need to be educated on who else I can't fellowship with.

I know you're being humorous.  I even chuckled.  But, seriously, you're analogy actually supports my request rather than exposes it. 

Suppose I were looking for a wife and I were a non-smoker, non-drinker, church-going, sports-loving, extrovert who loved to entertain.  Would the following list of requirements be a "search for the perfect" or a reasonable filter?  Here's the list: 1) not a muslim, hindu, buddhist, 2) not a club-hopper, 3) non-smoker, 4) non-drinker, and 5) not an introvert who doesn't like company.  Is this list "a search for the perfect?"  I don't think so.

Furthermore, by your last statement, you seem to imply that I don't fellowship with certain people.  I think if you'll look at my first post you'll see that I'm more concerned about people disfellowshipping me than the other way around (it's not the case that I'm vocal or argumentative).

[blituri]

Regardless of what Campbell said versus Stone, I think just about all RM churches are by and large Trinitarian.  There may be some issue among some with using the word "Trinity" but only because the word doesn't appear in the Bible (especially among those with a particularly strict sola scriptura point of view).  But, I believe any mainstream RM POV would agree with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in content (even if some choose to quibble over semantics).  There may be some renegade dissenters perhaps though.

That may be true but the ORTHODOX trinity is NOT a three-member Godhead: God as Father always has His Wisdom, and Breath and Word with Him.  The orthodox view is that the word SON has the same meaning as THE Word or words of God.  God and His "breath" and His "word" are not three persons as of the ACU -- LU polytheism which is identical to all pagan triads other than you must have father, mother (spirit) and eternally-infantile son. [Xmas]

The text universally makes it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to believe that Jesus didn't repudiate the trinity of Father Zeus, Son Dionysus and mother Demeter etal.  This was the trinity worshipped as the abomination of Desolation in the temple and Thomas wanted to SEE THE FATHER: Jesus made it perfectly clear that HE was the sole manifestation of Father, Son and Spirit.

When you depend on John Mark Hicks or the LU or East Wing you will find the trinity defined as three, separated, free standing, centers of consciousness.  That defines tritheism or polytheism. He makes a weak attempt to prove that Alexander Campbell was a closet Trinitarian in the LU sense.

No classical trinitarian ever halucinated a Godhead of God, Jesus and a Holy Spirit person. The Nicene creed speaks of God and Lord and dismisses the Spirit with "and we believe in the Holy Spirit." They ALL understood what Jesus explained CLEARLY in John 12f.

The inventers of the word TRIAS explain the nature of the ONE GOD as:

Father thinks.
Father breaths out or expels "breath" where the word is wind or breath and never a separated being.
The Son articulates the invisible but powerful WIND or BREATH into audible words.

That is exactly how Alexander Campbell stated it.  Thomas used "person" only because he couldn't find another word.

Psa. 33:6 By the [1] word of the [2] Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the [3] Breath of his mouth.
Psa. 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap:
       he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Psa. 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psa. 33:9 For HE spake, and it was done; HE commanded, and it stood fast.

Alexander Campbell's views had to be explained that he was not an orthodox unitarian