Christian Forums

Quote from: Mere Nick on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 13:32:34

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 13:09:17
"Who's he and why should I care?"

That's one of the reasons I've always wondered why a guest speaker is brought in for those "gospel meetings".  I asked at a congregational meeting one time, or maybe just with the elders, I forget which, why a guest speaker is needed.  Is there something wrong with our current preacher?  Could 1/2 of 1% of the county name our preacher?  Why would a guest preacher draw anyone?

Typically a revival is meant to "revive" the church, to infuse it with a fresh new vitality, to re-inspire them to a more passionate love of God and their fellow man.  Events like a revival also provide a focal point for prayer and work.  It is also healthy to bring in a different style of minister occassionally, even regularly.  The Lord gave the 5-fold ministry to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.  No single person can do the equipping of the full 5-fold ministry.  A pastor can not mobilize or equip the church in evangelism like an evangelist.  A pastor cannot mobilize or equip the church in prayer, hearing God, holy living, and the spiritual gifts nearly as well as a prophet.  And an apostle cannot provide personal compassion, care, and support nearly as well as a pastor. 

Your pastor/minister might serve steak every service; but sometimes one just needs a bowl of oatmeal.  The more isolated an individual or congregation, the less healthy they are spiritually, emotionally, mentally, or relationally.

There are many positive reasons for churches to regularly have revivals! 

QuoteI agree.

Still I think everyone makes a distinction somewhere.  I think A. Campbell even would draw the line between Christian and non-christian.  Would he be willing to call a Christian a Haitian who syncretized christianity with African religions and practiced voodoo?  Would he be willing to refer as christian one who practices certain aspects of Hinduism that incorporate Christianity into their worship?  Would he be comfortable with the other side of rationalism with the theology of Albert Schweitzer and other liberal theologians?  He's going to make a cutoff somewhere - and much of his writings seem to make this distinction at "Romanism" - but I agree he didn't explicitly say this.

Obviously Campbell had a cutoff point, however during the 1840s Aylette Raines controversy Campbell refused to withdraw from Raines over his Universalist views because Raines agreed to stop preaching them publicly. Campbell said, in part:

If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him--not because of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to lord it over God's heritage.

Campbell allowed for people to be seriously wrong on certain matters without withdrawing fellowship from them-so long as they kept them private and weren't dogmatic. Raines eventually studied himself out of his Universalism and credited Campbell's even-handed approach as helping him to do so.

It was a different story with Jesse B. Ferguson of Nashville in the 1850s. Ferguson refused to stop publicly teaching Universalism after repeated attempts by Campbell to get him to do so, with the result that Campbell urged the brotherhood to withdraw from him, which they did. Ferguson eventually went totally off the deep end and founded a spiritualist commune near Nashville.

As for Roman Catholics, Campbell's understanding allowed him to fellowship a Roman Catholic who had been scripturally immersed (assuing such a thing happened). Because belief and baptism were the only prerequisites for becoming a Christian and a member of the Church. Technically such a person could retain all or some of his Catholic views, so long as he held them privately and didn't use them as tests of fellowship. Campbell would then own that person as a brother or sister. In an ecumenical meeting at Lexington, Kentucky in 1841, he stated:

Whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union.

He often expressed this "catholic rule for unity" in terms of the seven "facts" of Ephesians 4:4-6 (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all). On the basis of Ephesians 4, Campbell believed that "we must fraternize with all who practically own one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all" and "with all such we must maintain the unity of spirit in the bonds of peace." In his 1860 address to the American Christian Missionary Society, he refered to these as the seven hills of the "true Zion of Israel's God." They are the seven "divinely constructed and instituted pillars" which are "alone sufficient, and the all-sufficient foundation--the indestructible basis--of Christ's kingdom on this earth, and of man's spiritual and eternal salvation in the full enjoyment of himself, his Creator, his Redeemer."

As early as 1825 Campbell was using such language, such as his response to Baptist Robert B. Semple:

One consolation I have, that you and I believe all the same gospel facts. We believe every fact which Paul called the glad tidings, viz. that "Jesus died for our sins; that he was buried; and that he rose the third day according to the Scriptures." Nay, we are equally assured of all facts in the gospel history, and consequently are of one faith.  I do not think there is one historic fact in all the testimonies of the four Evangelists in which our faith is not the same. We are not only of one faith,  but we agree in one immersion also. You say that we are buried with Christ in immersion, and raised with him; and that in this act we put him on.  We do not differ in the one Lord--in the one God--in the one body--in the one Spirit, which animates that one body; and in the one hope of a glorious resurrection from the dead.  In some points of view we differ on some of these unities; or, rather, we view them with more or less distinctness and force. We pray to the same God and Father, through the same Lord and Saviour, and by the same Holy Spirit. In a word, we agree in a thousand things, constituents and connectives of the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Ages of the world. But we differ in the strength or weakness--in the latitude or longitude of our conceptions of some matters and things connected with, or proceeding from the seven unities. . . .

Campbell recognized, of course, that "on these subjects there has been an interminable, international, sectarian speculative war in which all parties have incorporated the language of Ashdod." All parties of this war have entered the ranks of the Reformers, but they have entered to the end that there might be full and free discussion as they move to "a more clear and full agreement." Campbell believes that as long as one "practically" admits "but one Lord and one sacrifice for sin," and that "without Christ's blood there is no remission," then he will commune with them despite the fact that their speculations apparently deny what they affirm. Campbell accepted Stone because he saw in Stone a practical faith that affirmed the seven ones of Ephesians even though they disagreed about how to understand the fullness of some of those particulars. In the same breath, Campbell invited Bro. Andrew Broaddus and his "Baptist Christians" to extend the right hand of fellowship to him as he had done to Stone.

Campbell envisioned a community of believers who assented to the seven ones of Ephesians 4 where discussion and communion continue "although in many points [the community] may err both in theory and practice." Campbell calls for a theological unity around the seven ones, but for a unity that is ever progressing toward a deeper and fuller understanding of those seven fundamental beliefs. It would be a discussion that recognizes genuine faith in each other but where theology is in process for the community. The community is centered in the same faith as it seeks to understand that faith in the context of community. This is the task of theology--exegetical, historical and theological--within a community. This is where scholars need to serve the church and minister to its faith.

Pax.

QuoteHey, I've got a wild idea: How about, we forget about Campbell and the rest, and just teach Bible truths?  

Then if it happens to agree with Campbell, wonderful; but if not, let the Word prevail.  Otherwise, we're just exalting men and tradition, and isn't that the very thing that Campbell  & Co. preached against?

Steve, that sounds great in theory, however in actual practice its a lot harder to do. Because as I've argued to Robert many times before, we in Churches of Christ never have taken "the Bible alone," at least not in the past 75-100 years. Much of our present theological views and doctrinal positions we inherited from our parents and forbears-such as invitation songs, for example. Can anyone point to a scripture verse in the NT that says you have to close an assembly with an invitation, and then a song? But try to drop the invitation and invitation song at some CoCs and they'd riot. Because everyone knows you have to sing an invitation hymn.

Or our views on Civil Rights in the 1960s. Did our resistance in some cases to Civil Rights come from the Bible or the larger Southern segregationist culture of that day? How about those congregations that integrated? Was their desire to do so based only or even primarily upon the Bible? Some perhaps, but not all. Had Dr. Martin Luther King not forced the issue, Churches of Christ might never have integrated, at least not when they did. If we'd listened to David Lipscomb a mere 60 years before, we would've, but then we're selective about what from our past we will pay attention to and what we'll ignore.

We blast others for not knowing the difference between the Bible and their traditions, and for elevating their traditions to a level with scripture-and yet we've done the exact same thing, all the while denying it. For some reason we think our felllowship has managed to bypass 1900 years of religious and secular history while everyone else's has been (negatively) affected by these forces. Studying our history helps us to recognize what's merely tradition or cultural, and what's gospel.

On a very practical level, how can a group know where it's going if it doesn't know where it's been?


If you're worn out with Campbell (I hope you're not), you might want to skip this thread and this forum (I hope you won't), which is about Stone, Campbell and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Their names will probably come up here again.

Pax.

Lee.

Pretty soon there will be a Gary-One True Church Movement Forum.

Freeman, I do respect your insights and knowledge.  Far too many people in the Christian forums (GC and others) speak out of uninformed zeal to defend their own respective institutions.  To the extent that my subconscious allows, I attempt to debate issues and not personalities and institutions.

I am not a COC lifer, and I don't pretend to understand all of the issues from the POV of someone who is.  Still, the Southern roots should not be an excuse for someone to cling to their 100+ year-old hang-ups today.

Guest-teaching the adult Bible class Sunday, I asked if people knew who Barton Stone was.  One person raised her hand.  I then asked who knew who Alexander Campbell was, and everyone's hand went up.

Kind of interesting, if expected.  While we're in a state that partially owes its existence to Mr. Campbell, Mr. Stone actually lived closer to our congregation.  But Campbell triumphed, I guess.

______________

btw, a comment about the guest preacher for meeting thing: why do we insist on advertising the guest preacher's hometown?  I never got that.  Come to a soul-stirring series of Gospel Meetings with Brother John Bean of Rutabega, Georgia.

Man, I wasn't going to come, but then you mentioned he's from Rutabega!  I'm impressed.

I've noticed that Southern Gospel groups advertise their appearances the same way.

Generally speaking, I believe it's a good idea for someone other than the regular minister to preach now and then.  Otherwise, the people are tempted to idolize the preacher because they can't imagine the congregation without him.

Also, most preachers don't spend their whole career.  Or if nothing else, they eventually die.  So if you have a guest preacher from time to time, it helps the people adjust in a transition.

Or how about this?  In any congregation of over 20 members, surely there must be a (lay)man who can pinch-hit in the pulpit occasionally.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 16:48:18
Generally speaking, I believe it's a good idea for someone other than the regular minister to preach now and then.  Otherwise, the people are tempted to idolize the preacher because they can't imagine the congregation without him.

Also, most preachers don't spend their whole career.  Or if nothing else, they eventually die.  So if you have a guest preacher from time to time, it helps the people adjust in a transition.

Or how about this?  In any congregation of over 20 members, surely there must be a (lay)man who can pinch-hit in the pulpit occasionally.

It's not that I have a problem with other folks getting up there, but if you are doing something like a "gospel meeting" or a "revival" and trying to attract locals, it seems better to have the regular guy.

...or maybe the guy from the Methodist church up the road? 

A Methodist preacher at a COC gospel meeting?  Yeah, sometime after Nancy Pelosi is the Republican nominee for president.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 16:48:18
Generally speaking, I believe it's a good idea for someone other than the regular minister to preach now and then.  Otherwise, the people are tempted to idolize the preacher because they can't imagine the congregation without him.

Also, most preachers don't spend their whole career.  Or if nothing else, they eventually die.  So if you have a guest preacher from time to time, it helps the people adjust in a transition.

Or how about this?  In any congregation of over 20 members, surely there must be a (lay)man who can pinch-hit in the pulpit occasionally.

I idolize your Stevie and can't imagine the Forum without you!

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 16:48:18Or how about this?  In any congregation of over 20 members, surely there must be a (lay)man who can pinch-hit in the pulpit occasionally.

Here's the irony, though, based on my experience.  It seems like the bigger the congregation is, the less likely it is that a regular guy in the pews with no official position will ever preach.  At bigger congregations, there are "associate ministers" who fill in when the main guy is out... or else guest speakers are invited to come out.

At some of the much smaller churches I've been to, if the regular minister happened to be out, then someone else within the congregation might be asked to speak, who otherwise may have no official anything other than being a regular attendee of that congregation.

There are actually some "Mutual Edification" CofCs that are opposed to located preachers.  They just rotate who does the preaching and teaching.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 23:35:37
A Methodist preacher at a COC gospel meeting?  Yeah, sometime after Nancy Pelosi is the Republican nominee for president.

Or, at the church where I grew up, a few months back.  These have been a series of unity meetings, not pure Gospel Meetings, but the community turnout has been very good.

So is McCain going to be okay with the Pelosi thing?

Quote from: marc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 - 10:33:59

Quote from: Mere Nick on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 23:35:37
A Methodist preacher at a COC gospel meeting?  Yeah, sometime after Nancy Pelosi is the Republican nominee for president.

Or, at the church where I grew up, a few months back.  These have been a series of unity meetings, not pure Gospel Meetings, but the community turnout has been very good.

I fear that whole congregation is headed for www.thegapingmaw.com or www.gapingmaws.com

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 14:44:25

As for Roman Catholics, Campbell's understanding allowed him to fellowship a Roman Catholic who had been scripturally immersed (assuing such a thing happened). Because belief and baptism were the only prerequisites for becoming a Christian and a member of the Church. Technically such a person could retain all or some of his Catholic views, so long as he held them privately and didn't use them as tests of fellowship. Campbell would then own that person as a brother or sister. In an ecumenical meeting at Lexington, Kentucky in 1841, he stated:

Whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union.

He often expressed this "catholic rule for unity" in terms of the seven "facts" of Ephesians 4:4-6 (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all). On the basis of Ephesians 4, Campbell believed that "we must fraternize with all who practically own one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all" and "with all such we must maintain the unity of spirit in the bonds of peace." In his 1860 address to the American Christian Missionary Society, he refered to these as the seven hills of the "true Zion of Israel's God." They are the seven "divinely constructed and instituted pillars" which are "alone sufficient, and the all-sufficient foundation--the indestructible basis--of Christ's kingdom on this earth, and of man's spiritual and eternal salvation in the full enjoyment of himself, his Creator, his Redeemer."

Right, but Campbell was rather dogmatic in his ecumenism - was he not?    He insisted on certain behavior - that is maintaining silence when it did not fit his view of those 7 pillars.  He insisted on submission to his view of what was central in Christian beliefs.  For instance if one taught tran-substantiation - I have no doubt that he would have insisted on silence of that teaching in order to maintain some sort of fellowship, despite the insistance of other christians that this was a central pillar to them.

I'm not sure how one gets around the divisiveness.  For instance his view of one baptism (perhaps believers baptism and immersion?  or perhaps not?)  would cause many differences among believers in the years to come.  As talented and intelligent as Campbell is, there  seems to me to be a great deal of naivety in his outlook when looked at from at historical perspective.  Don't get me wrong,  I think there was much admirable about Campbell wanting to unite christians under one banner - I just think it was doomed to failure early on due to some fundamental stances that he took.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 21:52:21

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 16:48:18
Generally speaking, I believe it's a good idea for someone other than the regular minister to preach now and then.  Otherwise, the people are tempted to idolize the preacher because they can't imagine the congregation without him.

Also, most preachers don't spend their whole career.  Or if nothing else, they eventually die.  So if you have a guest preacher from time to time, it helps the people adjust in a transition.

Or how about this?  In any congregation of over 20 members, surely there must be a (lay)man who can pinch-hit in the pulpit occasionally.

It's not that I have a problem with other folks getting up there, but if you are doing something like a "gospel meeting" or a "revival" and trying to attract locals, it seems better to have the regular guy.

I suppose it depends on how evangelistic your minister is.  Not only is the pastor/teacher a gift of Christ, but so is the evangelist.  And though we're all called to share the gospel, some people are radically gifted in doing so and in training others to do so.  So having an evangelist do an outreach for your church could be a very good thing.

Quote from: zoonance on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 12:48:17
Some folks get along better at a distance.       Like being on the Forum?  

Mmm hmm.

Quote from: marc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 - 10:33:59

Quote from: Mere Nick on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 23:35:37
A Methodist preacher at a COC gospel meeting?  Yeah, sometime after Nancy Pelosi is the Republican nominee for president.

Or, at the church where I grew up, a few months back.  These have been a series of unity meetings, not pure Gospel Meetings, but the community turnout has been very good.

So is McCain going to be okay with the Pelosi thing?

I just can't see this happening at our congregation anytime soon.  Nothing much was said a few years back when a Roman Catholic priest helped at a funeral service at our building, but it wasn't an official WORSHIP SERVICE.  There's probably lots of folks who wouldn't mind, but then, there are enough who probably would to where it just won't happen.  Kinda like Pelosi and an oil drilling vote.

Quote from: Sherman Nobles on Mon Aug 25, 2008 - 15:11:16

Quote from: Mere Nick on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 21:52:21

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 16:48:18
Generally speaking, I believe it's a good idea for someone other than the regular minister to preach now and then.  Otherwise, the people are tempted to idolize the preacher because they can't imagine the congregation without him.

Also, most preachers don't spend their whole career.  Or if nothing else, they eventually die.  So if you have a guest preacher from time to time, it helps the people adjust in a transition.

Or how about this?  In any congregation of over 20 members, surely there must be a (lay)man who can pinch-hit in the pulpit occasionally.

It's not that I have a problem with other folks getting up there, but if you are doing something like a "gospel meeting" or a "revival" and trying to attract locals, it seems better to have the regular guy.

I suppose it depends on how evangelistic your minister is.  Not only is the pastor/teacher a gift of Christ, but so is the evangelist.  And though we're all called to share the gospel, some people are radically gifted in doing so and in training others to do so.  So having an evangelist do an outreach for your church could be a very good thing.

I can see your point.  It just seems preferable to have visitors considering becoming part of the congregation listen to the one they will normally listen to if they start coming regular.  Its just a personal preference of mine, that's all it is.

My personal preferance is not to have a rgular preacher or any preacher in the assembly for that matter.

Quote from: Johnb on Tue Aug 26, 2008 - 07:05:22
My personal preferance is not to have a rgular preacher or any preacher in the assembly for that matter.

That's my normal preference.  Now that we have a regular, though, I don't want to see him given his walking papers.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 13:32:34

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 13:09:17
"Who's he and why should I care?"

That's one of the reasons I've always wondered why a guest speaker is brought in for those "gospel meetings".  I asked at a congregational meeting one time, or maybe just with the elders, I forget which, why a guest speaker is needed.  Is there something wrong with our current preacher?  Could 1/2 of 1% of the county name our preacher?  Why would a guest preacher draw anyone?

I've wondered that myself.

I've seen ads for revivals and gospel meetings with "GUEST SPEAKER" in big letters.  To quote Gomer Pyle, "It makes you think".  To quote Saint Andrew of Mayberry, "thinking's good for the head".

Guest speakers are usually brought in because the current minister isn't meeting the needs of the church and more than likely afraid to speak the truth (even in love). People need to hear about sin, repentance, hell, but it's not preached anymore.

Quote from: covnitkepr1 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 - 19:24:23
People need to hear about sin, repentance, hell, but it's not preached anymore.

I read a magazine interview (maybe ten years ago) with Robert Schuller.     He says he hasn't preached about hell for about 40 years.  Too depressing, and it doesn't pack 'em in.

The meaning of church is to CALL OUT the tiny few FROM the WORLD: God hides Himself from the world and the wise (rhetoricians, actors, singers, players) and Jesus will NOT even pray for them.

2Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:
        for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
        and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Cor. 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
        or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

An infidel is Apistos: the believeth not denies that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The word denies that Christ has any saving power.

2Cor. 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.
2Cor. 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,

Since many are called but FEW are chosen, wanting to bundle with the masses is a dangerous thing.

"Unity" exists withing the collective group and there is no imperative to "union" with any other group which usually means  WE ENDORSE YOU as if they needed such superior affirmation.
     
2Cor. 6:18 And will be a Father unto you,
       and ye shall be my sons and daughters,
       saith the Lord Almighty.

Quote from: Johnb on Mon Nov 12, 2007 - 16:06:30
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 

It failed because it rejected the Church established by Jesus.

Jesus started on Church.  It is nearly 2000 years old and the largest Church in the world!

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 20:50:36
It failed because it rejected the Church established by Jesus.

Jesus started on Church.  It is nearly 2000 years old and the largest Church in the world!

Now, would you be talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, or someone else?  

I tend to lose track of which competing bodies boast of being the original church Jesus started 2000 years ago to the exclusion of all others.  

Perhaps the failure of the unity movement and the response to this topic are related.

I can assure you it failed for this reason just by listening to people...THEY WANT YOU IN THEIR CHURCH NOT IN JESUS!!!

John 15:4

Its all about making ends meet at the end of the month!!!

J. F. Burnett in 1921 denies that what became churches of Christ ever united with what became the Disciples of Christ (names were fluid).

http://www.piney.com/Stone.Campbell.Burnett.html

There never was a "unity" between what became the Church of Christ and the Disciples / Christian churches.  You should grasp that after the First Great American Awakening the "unity" impulse identified as witchcraft resulted in 321 new, named denomintions: even the Quakers split four ways.  Of these most were Baptists. That was whittled down so that there are now 146 named Baptist denominations.

After the Second Great American Awakening (the Stoneites) which would be identified as witchcraft in some places, there was again a scramble to pick up the loose lambs. The Bapists and Methodists confessed to participating to collect members--like a Billy Graham affair.

The Stoneites had nothing in common with the "reformers" which included the Campbells.
The Diciples confess that any hope of "friendly assemblies" ceased after William Miller convinced lots of people that Jesus would return in 1843-44 but FIRST everyone would have to unite and save the Jews. The Disciples formed a missionary society to save the Jews: the Jews did not want to be "saved" and Jesus didn't return. The pieces were picked up by the Disciples and Seventh Day Adventists. The premillenial views along with other Stoneite practices find a big fan in John Mark Hicks and LU.

Alexander Campbell used the name Millennial Harbinger to debunk ALL of the theories. That does not prevent modern discorders from twisting Campbell into noodle soup.

The only so-called "union" consisted of a group of preachers who agreed to some joint assemblies. The Solemn Agreement would have prevented societies or instruments but of the promise in Rick Atchley's words "That as then but this is now."

The only "split" happened mostly in the Disciples/Chistian churches when all who denounced instruments began to add them in a troubling sense after the War of Northern Aggression. The Christian Churches spawned off the Disciples in 1927 for the same reason the churches of Christ never joined them.

This was the agenda of the Disciples about the time the first census was told that the churches of Christ were not part of the Disciples.


This is when the Christian Churches began to sectarian out of the Disciples.

THEY broke the unity with the Disciples: if they wanted UNITY they would never have become a sect of the Disciples and they would NOW seek to UNITE with that which they broke.

The Christian Church did not exist for more than a decade after churches of Christ in Nashville had to deny that they belonged to the disciples denomination defined above. To say that the ANTI-instrumental churches are a SECTARIAN division of the much later NACC is what we call a whopper. Why do they tell it? Probably because they can generate enough hate to peel off members, whole churches and whole universties.

God bless blituri. I said it once and will say it again, those whom are born of the Spirit will not associate themselves with a denomination.

As one says, "I am Catholic"
Another says, "I am pentecostal"
Another says, "I am Muslim"

The first word I ever heard was this...

"I am born again Christian"

And I wondered...

Then, near two years later, again...

"I am born again Christian. You must belong to God."

And I wondered...

Then I knew I had passed from death to life when I received Jesus as Lord and Savior and was...BORN AGAIN!
Hebrews 12:23

I am resurrecting an old thread.
From the OP:

QuoteHere 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

From James:

Quote1. 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.

I will propose something a bit radical.  That is that NO attempt of unification (in a broad sense) will work until the very first dis-unity is properly dealt with and repented from.

That is the exclusion of the Messianic Jews in the 2nd and 3rd centuries from the gentile church.  We were not even invited to the table for the first Nicean council (325 ad). Indeed, Eusubius who was alive at the time says we were all heretics for looking and acting so Jewish.

DUH! WE were Jews!

When that schism is fixed, the rest will start to fall into place; kinda like getting that top button in the RIGHT hole.....