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

[Jimbob]

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!

[Sherman Nobles]

I don't know, I kinda like my ear because it's an ear and not trying to be an eye.  Of course, both are named differently though they are part of the body.  God is amazing and tremendously creative.  Just look at all the different types of dogs!  In like manner, I believe we need to rejoice in the diversity in the body of Christ.  Various groups are called to reach different groups of people.  

Why can not we have unity in diversity?  I believe that the greatest hinderance to true unity is pride, thinking more highly of ourselves than we should.  Humility draws people together.

[Johnb]

Sherman ask
Why can not we have unity in diversity?

"Unity in Diversity"  A book By W. Carl Ketcherside.  Later Johnb

[soterion]

I've read a number of books about the ecumenical movement and the desire for greater unity (both for and against the movement).

It always boils down to whether a person is willing to sacrifice his own doctrinal beliefs for the sake of so called unity.  I say "so called" because if we do not agree on how one is saved and becomes a Christian, then we cannot be united, not in truth anyway.

How many of you on here calling for unity are willing to make that sacrifice?  How many of you are willing to overlook the fact that you cannot accept somebody as a brother who does not agree with you on how one is saved and remains a child of God (this is besides other doctrinal differences)?

[Brian Kelley]

I consider the vast majority of those who disagree with me my brothers.

[marc]

I've read a number of books about the ecumenical movement and the desire for greater unity (both for and against the movement).

It always boils down to whether a person is willing to sacrifice his own doctrinal beliefs for the sake of so called unity.  I say "so called" because if we do not agree on how one is saved and becomes a Christian, then we cannot be united, not in truth anyway.

How many of you on here calling for unity are willing to make that sacrifice?  How many of you are willing to overlook the fact that you cannot accept somebody as a brother who does not agree with you on how one is saved and remains a child of God (this is besides other doctrinal differences)?

In the end, I don't think the "how" is the focus of scripture.  If it were, I don't think there would be so many disagreements.  Besides that, the whole tone of Jesus' teachign focuses on something deeper than procedures.

This is not to say that procedures, specifically baptism, are unimportant, as they point to the sacrifice of Christ.

Because of all this, I can set aside my ideas on "how" if there is agreement on the essentiality of Christ.

[charlie]

I wonder if Jesus' disciples ever fretted over how they can get the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, and themselves to unite.

[soterion]

Brian Kelley,
marc,

I can't set aside my understanding of what the Scriptures say about how one is saved.  It simply doesn't make any sense to say that how one is saved is beside the point and the two having that disagreement can still be regarded in each others eyes as brothers.

I consider the vast majority of those who disagree with me my brothers.

Because of all this, I can set aside my ideas on "how" if there is agreement on the essentiality of Christ.

I guess you guys did answer my question.  There seems to be a willingness to sacrifice the truth what the Scriptures say about how one is saved for the sake of so called unity.  At least with marc.  Brian Kelley didn't specify what the disagreement can be over and still have unity.

Let me ask this:  Is there anything two people can disagree over and unity not be maintained?  What disagreement(s) can lead to division in the eyes of God.

[marc]

I'm not setting aside anything except my pride.  Scriptures never say that knowledge of procedures is the basis for unity.  The unity of the Spirit is keptin the bond of peace, not the bond of doctrinal correctness.

To be blunt, the "sacrifice truth" is a bit of a dodge.  None of us are ever going to agree 100% on anything so, using this view, we will always be "sacrificing truth" if we have unity even with one other person.

But that's not what we're doing.  We're not sacrificing truth; we're adknowledging that we're unified by a greater Truth.

Besides, I will admit that the other guy may have a handle on some truth that I have not yet grasped. 

If we're going to Biblical, we need to be Biblical about what creates and keeps unity.

[Bon Voyage]

Brian Kelley,
marc,

I can't set aside my understanding of what the Scriptures say about how one is saved.  It simply doesn't make any sense to say that how one is saved is beside the point and the two having that disagreement can still be regarded in each others eyes as brothers.

I consider the vast majority of those who disagree with me my brothers.

Because of all this, I can set aside my ideas on "how" if there is agreement on the essentiality of Christ.

I guess you guys did answer my question.  There seems to be a willingness to sacrifice the truth what the Scriptures say about how one is saved for the sake of so called unity.  At least with marc.  Brian Kelley didn't specify what the disagreement can be over and still have unity.

Let me ask this:  Is there anything two people can disagree over and unity not be maintained?  What disagreement(s) can lead to division in the eyes of God.

The error that was repeatedly talked about in the New Testament that led to division in the eyes of God was the divinity of Christ.

Other things that led to division were not doctrinal, but behavioral, such as those who sow discord.

[soterion]

I'm not setting aside anything except my pride.  Scriptures never say that knowledge of procedures is the basis for unity.  The unity of the Spirit is keptin the bond of peace, not the bond of doctrinal correctness.

To be blunt, the "sacrifice truth" is a bit of a dodge.  None of us are ever going to agree 100% on anything so, using this view, we will always be "sacrificing truth" if we have unity even with one other person.

But that's not what we're doing.  We're not sacrificing truth; we're adknowledging that we're unified by a greater Truth.

Besides, I will admit that the other guy may have a handle on some truth that I have not yet grasped. 

If we're going to Biblical, we need to be Biblical about what creates and keeps unity.

You missed my point.

I am not saying that full agreement on all doctrine is how unity is arrived.  I am saying that if one is not even truly saved then he cannot be considered in unity with Christ and with those who are in Christ.

If two people cannot agree on what makes a Christian, then they cannot in the least consider each other saved and in unity.

[janine]

I am doing the guy in the next pew a horrible disservice, if --

So far as I understand the workings of God in this life --

If he is not in relationship with God, not saved --

And I do not address this issue with him in the hope of maintaining some kind of "unity".

I see nothing wrong with all sorts of meeting together and pulling together and working together with all sorts of people.  Neither my salvation nor anyone else's is hanging upon the differences in "flavor" between groups of people who claim to follow the Christ.

It's in the field-furrows and the trenches, the marketplace and the heat of the kitchen, working together for love of the Christ, that I can forge really good relationships with people and "iron" can sharpen "iron". 

If the fellow who calls me "Sister" loves me, and I love him, because we have been together for a week mucking three feet of mud out of a little old lady's hurricane-flooded house, and me and this fellow each can see the determination to serve Jesus in the other --

Then, after we have all those connections, perhaps he and I can share information about how the Christ saved, and saves, and is saving.

There's a lot more likelihood that we'll have a productive discussion within the context of serving and working together, than if I as a stranger handed him a 1950's tract written in "Church-a-Christ" church-speak, and I admonished him about how lost he was, and used my "posture" on him as if I were trying to sell him on Amway rather than Jesus.

[soterion]

I am doing the guy in the next pew a horrible disservice, if --

So far as I understand the workings of God in this life --

If he is not in relationship with God, not saved --

And I do not address this issue with him in the hope of maintaining some kind of "unity".

I see nothing wrong with all sorts of meeting together and pulling together and working together with all sorts of people.  Neither my salvation nor anyone else's is hanging upon the differences in "flavor" between groups of people who claim to follow the Christ.

It's in the field-furrows and the trenches, the marketplace and the heat of the kitchen, working together for love of the Christ, that I can forge really good relationships with people and "iron" can sharpen "iron". 

If the fellow who calls me "Sister" loves me, and I love him, because we have been together for a week mucking three feet of mud out of a little old lady's hurricane-flooded house, and me and this fellow each can see the determination to serve Jesus in the other --

Then, after we have all those connections, perhaps he and I can share information about how the Christ saved, and saves, and is saving.

There's a lot more likelihood that we'll have a productive discussion within the context of serving and working together, than if I as a stranger handed him a 1950's tract written in "Church-a-Christ" church-speak, and I admonished him about how lost he was, and used my "posture" on him as if I were trying to sell him on Amway rather than Jesus.

All of that is beside the point.

Unity has to begin with whether or not one is in Christ.  If a person is not saved, then he has no unity with those who are in Christ.

Maybe I misunderstood the point of the thread and you are all talking about unity in serving others and in all sorts of other good intentions apart from whether those working together are all saved, and not about unity in Christ?

[Johnb]

Here is what one of the founding fathers of the unity movement thought.

     7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of di-
   vine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing er-
   rors, be highly expedient; and the more full and explicit they be,
   for those purposes, the better; yet, as these must be in a great
20        measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must con-
   tain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of
   christian communion: unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact,
   that none have a right to the communion of the church, but such
   as possess a very clear and decisive judgment; or are come to a
25        very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the church
   from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and
   young men, as well as fathers.
         8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particu-
   lar knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed
30        truths in order to entitle them to a place in the church; neither 
   should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession 
   more extensive than their knowledge: but that, on the contrary,
   their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting
   their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice; and of the 
35        way of salvation thro' Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession
   of their faith in, and obedience to him, in all things according to
   his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for
   admission into his church.

Thomas Campebell Decleration and Address 1809.  Later Johnb

[Sherman Nobles]

Concerning doctrines that divide us, there are many.  Concerning doctrines that unite us, there are a few: Jesus is God, Jesus lived, died, rose again, returned to heaven, and will come again, and because of his sacrifice we can have eternal life and be saved.  

Concerning salvation, today most denominations, including Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Charismatics, believe that salvation is by grace through faith.  However, some fringe groups (and individuals) among or associated with these broader classifications hold so tightly to a particular expression of faith or lifestyle, that they seperate themselves from the greater body of Christ; and some go so far as to think that they are the only ones that truly know, love, and serve God. Others, they believe, are not saved or really Christians.  And they are the only true Christians that love God. Everyone else not in their little group is either deceived or in out-right rebellion against the "truths of scripture" that are so plainly evident to them.  

Such fringe groups' most basic problem is pride; they think more highly of themselves than they should.  They need to recognize that we are all wicked to the core, none of us really serve God or walk in holiness, but that we are all selfish and sinful, and our only hope is the grace of God, the undeserved love and forgiveness that He has towards all of mankind. Because of the love and forgiveness of God we can receive Christ and be born of the Spirit, born into the family of God.  There are no "steps" to salvation; there is only ONE Step and that is Jesus Christ, God Our Salvation!  He is faithful and just to save those whose trust is in Him!  And like Abraham, when we put our trust in God, He accredits to us the righteousness of Christ!   Hallelujah!  

Oops, I'm sorry. I'm getting off topic.  What can we do to help unite the body of Christ? Live in humility and love.  Recognize others who believe in Christ as brothers and sisters in Christ. And seek to value and serve one another in the love of Christ, encouraging one another in the faith.

[kamakaz]

i think the main thing that is missing is the focus being on God/Jesus but rather it is on us. we are to busy examing others believes that we miss out on the truth. Their is one God, one head and one body, all united in the blood of Christ, this is the glue that holds us all together.

We choose to turn away from one another over different believes, doctrine, ceremonies, etc. We choose to act outside the will of God/Jesus when Jesus prayed that we be one, united in Love. Where is the love today? We have abandoned love for self-righteousness and control. Whos is going to be the biggest and best church? it is kind of like the two brothers who's mother was even working to get her 2 boys to be seated next to Christ in heaven. Jesus told her, she did not know what she was asking, if she did, she would not have asked. There was a pride issue there, as we have today. No one wants to admit they may have been wrong, its my way or the highway! But broad is the way (highway) that leads to destruction.

if the church can not pull it together, our country is going to slip further into the bowels of hell. we were once the greatest nation on earth, who other countries would turn to for help, now we are the most hated nation on earth. our power and magisty has faded into nothingness. God sets up kings and puts down kings and kingdoms. How long will he put up with us?
The church is the key, it always has been (since it began), if the church gets so polluted God will pull the plug of His Divine protection and let a new nation take its place. We hold so fast to the grace doctrine that we some how believe that God is not still God, that He can not set up and put down kings and kingdoms any longer? Why is that, God has not changed, He is the same, yesturday, today and forever. He is still righteous and soverign.
we need to get it together and soon. It is as simple as this: Love! A one word solution, Love!

[spurly]

I consider the vast majority of those who disagree with me my brothers.

As do I.  Why?  Because people aren't saved by agreeing with me.  They are saved by the grace of God.

[spurly]

I am doing the guy in the next pew a horrible disservice, if --

So far as I understand the workings of God in this life --

If he is not in relationship with God, not saved --

And I do not address this issue with him in the hope of maintaining some kind of "unity".

I see nothing wrong with all sorts of meeting together and pulling together and working together with all sorts of people.  Neither my salvation nor anyone else's is hanging upon the differences in "flavor" between groups of people who claim to follow the Christ.

It's in the field-furrows and the trenches, the marketplace and the heat of the kitchen, working together for love of the Christ, that I can forge really good relationships with people and "iron" can sharpen "iron". 

If the fellow who calls me "Sister" loves me, and I love him, because we have been together for a week mucking three feet of mud out of a little old lady's hurricane-flooded house, and me and this fellow each can see the determination to serve Jesus in the other --

Then, after we have all those connections, perhaps he and I can share information about how the Christ saved, and saves, and is saving.

There's a lot more likelihood that we'll have a productive discussion within the context of serving and working together, than if I as a stranger handed him a 1950's tract written in "Church-a-Christ" church-speak, and I admonished him about how lost he was, and used my "posture" on him as if I were trying to sell him on Amway rather than Jesus.

All of that is beside the point.

Unity has to begin with whether or not one is in Christ.  If a person is not saved, then he has no unity with those who are in Christ.

Maybe I misunderstood the point of the thread and you are all talking about unity in serving others and in all sorts of other good intentions apart from whether those working together are all saved, and not about unity in Christ?

Soterion, I'm assuming you would agree with Paul who said we are saved by grace through faith and this not of ourselves it is a gift of God, not by works so that no one would boast.  Thus I accept as my brother or my sister anyone who is saved by grace through faith, through trusting in God to do for him/her through Jesus Christ what they could never do for themselves. 

[Howie26]

I'm not so sure our unity movement has failed.  It has not been perfect - there have been points of division.  If you look at the CoC from the 1906 division - there were around 150,000 of "us" left in the wake of that.  The church was 15 times larger in just 50 years.  And though there were issues that have divided the church, none were major splits.

I know that are congregations out there where the leadership is more interested in maintaining power than in maintaining unity.  But I would suggest those congregations represent not more than 10% of the CoC as we know it.  (But, unfortunately, a very loud 10%!)

[charlie]

I'm not so sure our unity movement has failed.  It has not been perfect - there have been points of division.  If you look at the CoC from the 1906 division - there were around 150,000 of "us" left in the wake of that.  The church was 15 times larger in just 50 years.  And though there were issues that have divided the church, none were major splits.

Wait a minute. Though we might call the reasons for the divisions minor, I think that the only assessment of the situation in the 20th Century with this movement is that the Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and all the flavors therein (one-cup, mutual edification, non-class, non-institutional, Boston Movement, liberal mainstream, conservative mainstream, and more coming) would be that there are indeed many major splits.

I would suggest that if there is 10% of anything, it would be 10% of the congregations who actually have something charitable to say about other congregations not of their flavor or appellation. In fact, I think that 10% is being quite generous.

[Howie26]

I'm not so sure our unity movement has failed.  It has not been perfect - there have been points of division.  If you look at the CoC from the 1906 division - there were around 150,000 of "us" left in the wake of that.  The church was 15 times larger in just 50 years.  And though there were issues that have divided the church, none were major splits.

Wait a minute. Though we might call the reasons for the divisions minor, I think that the only assessment of the situation in the 20th Century with this movement is that the Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and all the flavors therein (one-cup, mutual edification, non-class, non-institutional, Boston Movement, liberal mainstream, conservative mainstream, and more coming) would be that there are indeed many major splits.

I would suggest that if there is 10% of anything, it would be 10% of the congregations who actually have something charitable to say about other congregations not of their flavor or appellation. In fact, I think that 10% is being quite generous.

First of all, it is debatable that the mainstream has split between liberal and conservative.  As far as your list of divisions, though they are many, they consist of only about 15% of those who call themselves Church of Christ.  And more coming???  Is it possible that you are a little over the top?

2ndly, I don't know where you live, but in N. Central Alabama, there are many CoCs of many flavors, and in my experience, at least 95% of the congregations act in good standing with each other.  I am sure it isn't this high in every place, but I wonder if the idea that our unity movement has failed isn't more about emotion than fact.