Why our unity movement failed?

[Johnb]

I have researched and wondered over the years as to why our 19th century unity movement failed.  I was intended to be a unity movement.

    PROP. 1. THAT the church of Christ upon earth is essentially,
     intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in
   every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him
   in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same
   by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can be
   truly and properly called christians.
From Thomas Campbells declaration and address.

Here are some of the reasons I believe it failed.

1.  It was turned into a restoration movement

2. Campbell's theology was turned into a ridged pattern theology.

3. Men's desire for an intitution and power and authority.

4. The inability to understand God's grace

What think ye?  Later Johnb 

[Brian Kelley]

Calling oneself a new institution is inherently divisive.

We should strive not to create something new, but to truly unite the denominations.  Invite people from all denominations to meet together.  Something to that effect.

[Jaime]

Calling oneself a new institution is inherently divisive.

We should strive not to create something new, but to truly unite the denominations.  Invite people from all denominations to meet together.  Something to that effect.

We probably need to refrain from using devisive words like denomination (which refers to a division of the body of Christ)

[marc]

But it didn't fail!  Now we know who all the true Christians are--the people who agree with us!

Besides, it always existed.  Alexander Campbell didn't have anything to do with it.  I'm not sure he even existed!

 

closed captioned for the sarcasm impaired.  Just roll over the following text.

It failed because we began believing that we had found the answer and that if anyone truly wanted unity, he would unite with us, since we were the One True Church.  [/white]

[Brian Kelley]

Calling oneself a new institution is inherently divisive.

We should strive not to create something new, but to truly unite the denominations.  Invite people from all denominations to meet together.  Something to that effect.

We probably need to refrain from using devisive words like denomination (which refers to a division of the body of Christ)

That's why I suggested uniting them.  We shouldn't be afraid of the word, but of the division.  The denominations (divisions) exist, whether we like it or not.  We should work to unite the divisions, rather than keep them divided by avoiding them.

[Johnb]

Brian

I know you come from a differnt background.  If you would like to learn more of the movement that led to the creation of the Christian church/DOC Independent Christian church, Churches of christ and to a lessor degree UCC; a couple of books I would recommend are " The Fool of God "and Racoon John Smith both by Cocran.  Later Johnb

[James.]

Here's why I think it has failed thus far....

1. We did not maintain unity with those outside our buildings as a priority...at all.
2. In doing so, we simply became yet another alternative to unity.
3. We became satisfied with being yet another alternative.
4. We pretended none of the above was happening.

[Jaime]

Calling oneself a new institution is inherently divisive.

We should strive not to create something new, but to truly unite the denominations.  Invite people from all denominations to meet together.  Something to that effect.

We probably need to refrain from using devisive words like denomination (which refers to a division of the body of Christ)

That's why I suggested uniting them.  We shouldn't be afraid of the word, but of the division.  The denominations (divisions) exist, whether we like it or not.  We should work to unite the divisions, rather than keep them divided by avoiding them.

I guess that word denomination is a sore spot with me. "To ask someone which denomination you go to," is in reality literally saying, "which part of Christ's divided body do you attend?"

I know the intention is innocent enough, but I do wish there was a better way to verbalize it rather than using a synonym for division.  Maybe something like "what flavor of Christian are you?"

 

In my church of Christ upbringing, denomination, is sadly synonymous with false teachers.

[marc]

Doesn't denomination actually mean a named object or group, not a division? 

[marc]

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.  If you look at denomination as a means of classification, the idea of being part of a whole is there. I just think we in the Church of Christ have given the word a connotation it doesn't have.  Here's a way of thinking of it I like:

A group of Protestant churches with a particular heritage and sense of mission - like United Methodists, Lutherans, various kinds of Baptists, etc.

[Jaime]

Doesn't denomination actually mean a named object or group, not a division? 

de·nom·i·na·tion      /dɪˌnɒməˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-nom-uh-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.  
2. one of the grades or degrees in a series of designations of quantity, value, measure, weight, etc.: He paid $500 in bills of small denomination.  
3. a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things.  
4. a class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name.  
5. the act of naming or designating a person or thing.  

To me the word denomination has it root as denominator like in fractions or parts.

In reality, denominations are in effect divisions of the body of Christ, and not the one true body especially from the sectarian church of Christ viewpoint. If every denomination is as good as another, then no their wouldn't be any reason for divisive thinking. We are getting more to that than ever before, but we have a long way to go. I don't know many Baptists that would feel at home at a church of Christ and vise versa for reasons that include fatal doctrinal errors practiced by the other.

[marc]

The denominator is the part of a fraction that names, however, not the part that divides.  The root, I believe, has to do with "nom", as in nominative case or nomination.  To denominate something is to name it.

[Jaime]

The denominator is the part of a fraction that names, however, not the part that divides.  The root, I believe, has to do with "nom", as in nominative case or nomination.  To denominate something is to name it.

......and to separate from the larger whole.

[Johnb]

Jaime
Me thinks your indoctrination is showing.

[Jaime]

Jaime
Me thinks your indoctrination is showing.

Yeah, guilty as charged. 

I have come a long way from where I was, though!