What Matters More?

[DCR]

I'm not sure how to encourage CofC'ers that this is a good idea, frankly.

It's curious.  On the one hand I think the CofC'er hermeneutic is imminently suited toward Orthodoxy (even more so, with all charity, than Roman Catholicism).  On the other, I think CofC'ers generally are quite sectarian/closed to outside groups.

Welcome, CDHealy.

I think, in reality, "CofCer's" are all over the map on how they view many things.  And, that trend of diversification is growing.  So, you really have to identify which "camp" to know how to approach the issue.  Some would be more open to these ideas than others.

[CDHealy]

DCR:

You are correct, of course.  My experience of the RM is of very conservative CofC and "independent" Christian churches.  The only real difference in almost all cases was the use, or not, of the instrument.  All were very sectarian.

I have had some experience with Disciples churches as well, and that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.  Most were conservative but not sectarian.

I'm sure a lot of it has to do with geography.  I have attended "independent" Christian churches in central Illinois that were conservative but fairly open to other Protestants, and even some Catholics (Orthodox aren't even on the radar).  But even here in very liberal greater Chicago area, my wife and I went to a CofC for Easter one year.  There was no mention of Easter aside from a "It's not a different day for us; even though the rest of the world is celebrating it."  We never went back.

[boringoldguy]

1. The RM wants to restore NT Christianity

There's a poster here who's going to disagree with you about that one.

[CDHealy]

Is that poster one who sees the RM as a second reformation?

[boringoldguy]

Yes.

[Lee Freeman]

Is that poster one who sees the RM as a second reformation?

Yes. Because that's how the founders of that second reformation described it themselves. Not once do any of them refer to their movement as a "restoration movement." It is always The Reformation or The Present Reformation. At least as late as 1889 this was how they described it.

Pax vobiscum.[/color]

[boringoldguy]

See what I mean?

[boringoldguy]

For myself,  I'm not entirely sure the first one was a good idea.

[Jimbob]

:eatingpopcorn:

[Lee Freeman]

See what I mean?

Well, if we're going to describe their Movement I simply happen to think that in order to be as precise and correct as possible we should use their own description, not read back into it our preconceived ideas of it. Sorry if that's offensive to people, but blame the Campbells and their peers for the name, not me.

Pax.[/color]

[CDHealy]

That seems to be the two understandings of RM Christianity: either a restoration or a second reformation.

I tend to think the second more theologically plausible (on RM terms), though I am not well-acquainted enough with historic RM to know whether or not the former or the latter was the "original" RM view.

[CDHealy]

Oops.  Even though I refreshed, I didn't see the additional posts clarifying the terminology.

I have no particular axe to grind here.  I'm perfectly willing to accept the "second reformation" as the standard historical description.

The fact of the matter, however, is that popular RM'ism of the seventies and eighties, when I was raised and then educated at Bible college, saw RM as a "restoration" not so much a reformation.  (Though having said that, my RM history professor at Bible college acquainted us with the arguments for both pro and con.  I forget which side he came down on--if that was ever noted--though I would guess second reformation if my impressions/memories are accurate.)

[Lee Freeman]

Oops.  Even though I refreshed, I didn't see the additional posts clarifying the terminology.

I have no particular axe to grind here.  I'm perfectly willing to accept the "second reformation" as the standard historical description.

The fact of the matter, however, is that popular RM'ism of the seventies and eighties, when I was raised and then educated at Bible college, saw RM as a "restoration" not so much a reformation.  (Though having said that, my RM history professor at Bible college acquainted us with the arguments for both pro and con.  I forget which side he came down on--if that was ever noted--though I would guess second reformation if my impressions/memories are accurate.)

That's also how my dad was taught it, as well. And while its true that Campbell advocated a restoration of the ancient order as a means toward unity, he only did so from about 1824-1837, at which time he abandoned restoration as a means toward unity.

Some view Campbell primarily as a restorationist, however I believe that's a misunderstanding of him (though perhaps an understandable one); there's evidence from 1824 that he was willing to accept as brothers in Christ people who disagreed with his elements of his restoration platform-such as German Dunkard Jacob Hufstaedtler, whose German Baptist churches united with Campbell's in 1828, not to mention Barton Stone, who disagreed with nearly every item in Campbell's restorationist agenda, yet his and Canmpbell's churches formally united on New Years' Day, 1832.

There are several recent threads in the Theology Forum where we discussed and debated this. Though I'd be willing, I don't think anyone else really wants to re-hash those arguments here. You can read primary sources at Dr. Hans Rollmann's "Restoration Movement" website:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/restmov.html

Pax.[/color]

[tidbit]

Clifton,

Since I am the one who originally posted your thoughts on Ecumenism, I want to sincerely welcome you to the Grace Centered Message board.  As you know, I've been following your blog for some time now, and I am very (!!) pleased that you have joined us.

Haven't had time to read your third installment on ecumenism, so I think I'll do that now.....

[s1n4m1n]

Whether it was a reformation or a restoration (and there can be no doubt that both thoughts existed in the early Movement), it doesn't matter too much. If it was a second reformation further developing the original Protestant reformation then it is on the same dead end street. If it was a restoration (and by that I mean bringing back something that for all intents and purposes ceased to exist) then one has to wonder if there wasn't a good reason for it passing away in the first place.

Ken

[tidbit]

Clifton wrote:

The RM hermeneutic goes to great lenghts to affirm what the Scripture says about the efficacy, in salvific terms, of baptism (thus thinking of it as a sacrament, though without the terminology), and  yet goes to great lengths to avoid the conclusions of their own hermeneutic when applying it to the texts on the Lord's Supper, and embrace a distinctly anti-NT conclusion that it is *merely* a memorial.

You have stated this more succinctly than I ever could.  This is really starting to bother me.  The CoC has two sacraments, even though we strongly deny it.  (I guess you could call it a semi- or pseudo-sacramental view.)

First, baptism--has to be done a certain way, with the right words and understanding, almost universally by another member of the church, is absolutely necessary for salvation, etc., etc.

The second is the Lord's Supper--it has to be done on the first day of each week and is very important--so much so that we deliver it to shut-ins and have a second service in the evening so that those who were not able to attend in the morning can partake in the evening.  Also, many people attend church for the primary reason of partaking communion, as evidenced by the fact that people commonly get up and leave the service as soon as communion is over with.

To me, these issues are fundamental within the CoC, and they constitute a great deal of our identity--they are what largely distinguish us from protestant groups.  So, if we can get people to view these elements for what they are--sacramental--we are 75% of the way to orthodoxy.

(And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt on the ground.)[/color]

[CDHealy]

To me, these issues are fundamental within the CoC, and they constitute a great deal of our identity--they are what largely distinguish us from protestant groups.  So, if we can get people to view these elements for what they are--sacramental--we are 75% of the way to orthodoxy.

(And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt on the ground.)

This is what happened with me.  Once I saw that the New Testament spoke clearly of the Lord's Supper as sacramental, the implications and conclusions worked themselves out so that I'm on the cusp of the Orthodox Church.[/color]

[tidbit]

This is what happened with me.  Once I saw that the New Testament spoke clearly of the Lord's Supper as sacramental, the implications and conclusions worked themselves out so that I'm on the cusp of the Orthodox Church.

I naively followed the "memorial" position, having never studied the LS in detail.  Then, on BOG's (that's 'boringoldguy's') suggestion, I read The Imitation of Christ[/i] and studied the scriptures.  Talk about an epiphany!  My eyes were opened.  As you say, the New Testament is clear on the issue.

[Lee Freeman]

To me, these issues are fundamental within the CoC, and they constitute a great deal of our identity--they are what largely distinguish us from protestant groups.  So, if we can get people to view these elements for what they are--sacramental--we are 75% of the way to orthodoxy.

(And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt on the ground.)

This is what happened with me.  Once I saw that the New Testament spoke clearly of the Lord's Supper as sacramental, the implications and conclusions worked themselves out so that I'm on the cusp of the Orthodox Church.

I was taught as a kid two views. The first was that the True Church ceased to exist sometime after the death of the last apostle, and that the Church of Christ had restored it (though neither Stone nor the Campbells were ever mentioned); the second view was that the gates of hell could not prevail against Christ's Church and that Churches identical to ours had always existed down through history. Yet when I would ask my parents and teachers where this Church of Christ was they would say they didn't know but that it must have always existed somewhere. Preachers always point to the Toddlebank Church in 1600s England, which styled itself a "Church of Christ," however they apparently have never read anything about this church, as, among other "false teachings," it had a creed, and didn't much resemble any churches in our fellowship.

I have a friend who converted to the Greek Orthodox Church for similar reasons as you did-that and to get back at his parents for his strict CoC upbringing.

Personally, I'm not yet willing to jump ship, because I think our tradition has many viable and valuable things still to offer Christianity; I'm not willing to let leaglism or a staid traditionalism co-opt it. If I didn't believe their was hope for Churches of Christ I'd probably become non-denominational or Baptist.

Pax.[/color]

[DCR]

Yet when I would ask my parents and teachers where this Church of Christ was they would say they didn't know but that it must have always existed somewhere.

I heard a preacher once give an analogy about seeds lying dormant.  He talked about seeds being in the pyramids for thousands of years and how they could be planted and begin growing again.

So, some don't argue that the church "ceased to exist" as much as they say that it "went dormant."  After hundreds of years of apostasy, lo and behold, someone found them seeds...  :shrug:

[Lee Freeman]

Yet when I would ask my parents and teachers where this Church of Christ was they would say they didn't know but that it must have always existed somewhere.

I heard a preacher once give an analogy about seeds lying dormant.  He talked about seeds being in the pyramids for thousands of years and how they could be planted and begin growing again.

So, some don't argue that the church "ceased to exist" as much as they say that it "went dormant."  After hundreds of years of apostasy, lo and behold, someone found them seeds...  :shrug:[/color]

DCR, that view sounds somewhat similar to the view espoused by Ed Pobre's Iglesia Ni Cristo, which teaches that God allowed the True Church to go into some kind of "suspended animation," until Felix Y. Manaolo revived or restored it in 1914, although, according to Ed, no one was saved between roughly AD 100 and AD 1914.

Pax vobiscum.

[winky]

For what it's worth in the more progressive side of the CoC, many would consider Catholics and Orthodox as brethren, although they would disagree on a number of issues. I've been in the CoC for 26 years now and never been taught that there were no Christians except the CoC. (I was told that some CoC people believed that, but none of the churches I've attended promoted that belief.)

I'd hardly consider the CA2005 to be reaching out toward Catholicism, as Ken does, despite their quote. But I do see, among the more progressive side of the fellowship, much less hostility toward Catholics and a reaching out to embrace certain parts of Catholicism. For example, my church has Taize worship services occasionally on Sunday nights for anyone who wishes to attend. My understanding is that the Taize tradition is borrowed from Catholicism. Also, we do responsive readings and recitations (such as the Lord's Prayer -- every Sunday). Also, at ACU's Lectureship, I believe I remember seeing a class called "Embracing Your Inner Catholic"! (Interestingly, I think it was a youth ministry class.)

Now, the caveat there is that the more progressive side of the movement is equally (or more) interested in fellowship with other Protestant groups and most would still consider the CoC to be much closer to Baptists and non-denom. churches than to Catholics or Orthodox. And, most on the progressive side, while not condemning denominational structure as sinful, are not terribly interested in embracing it themselves. At least, that's my perception from my little slice of the world!

Wendy

[DCR]

Yet when I would ask my parents and teachers where this Church of Christ was they would say they didn't know but that it must have always existed somewhere.

I heard a preacher once give an analogy about seeds lying dormant.  He talked about seeds being in the pyramids for thousands of years and how they could be planted and begin growing again.

So, some don't argue that the church "ceased to exist" as much as they say that it "went dormant."  After hundreds of years of apostasy, lo and behold, someone found them seeds...  :shrug:

DCR, that view sounds somewhat similar to the view espoused by Ed Pobre's Iglesia Ni Cristo, which teaches that God allowed the True Church to go into some kind of "suspended animation," until Felix Y. Manaolo revived or restored it in 1914, although, according to Ed, no one was saved between roughly AD 100 and AD 1914.

Pax vobiscum.

It was actually my first exposure to ed that really rattled me and was a wakeup call that some of those sentiments in our own fellowship could be a little off.

With the first posts I read by him (before I had even heard of the Iglesia Ni Cristo), I just thought he was an especially zealous hyper-conservative from our ranks, until I noticed the heretical stuff.  When I saw the initial info on the InC, I wondered how they could arrive at such similar ideas (restoration of the true first century/New Testament church, emphasis on baptism, etc.)... until I read Manalo's background... he picked up some of his restorationist ideas from.........

...us[/color]

[s1n4m1n]

I'd hardly consider the CA2005 to be reaching out toward Catholicism, as Ken does, despite their quote. But I do see, among the more progressive side of the fellowship, much less hostility toward Catholics and a reaching out to embrace certain parts of Catholicism. For example, my church has Taize worship services occasionally on Sunday nights for anyone who wishes to attend. My understanding is that the Taize tradition is borrowed from Catholicism. Also, we do responsive readings and recitations (such as the Lord's Prayer -- every Sunday). Also, at ACU's Lectureship, I believe I remember seeing a class called "Embracing Your Inner Catholic"! (Interestingly, I think it was a youth ministry class.)

I don't know any of the writers of the CA2005, but I just find it curious who they quote and reference. They were chosen for a reason.

Ken[/color]

[s1n4m1n]

DCR,

What I was taught was that the Word is the seed and wherever it is planted it would produce the same crop (excepting the different types of soil). So in a good soil the seed will always produce the good crop - simple New Testament Christians.

[winky]

I don't know any of the writers of the CA2005, but I just find it curious who they quote and reference. They were chosen for a reason.

I find it curious too. I just think they say more about their intent by their affirmation of traditions that are opposed to Catholic practice -- believer's baptism, no instruments, Lord's Supper only on Sunday, etc.[/color]

[Lee Freeman]

I don't know any of the writers of the CA2005, but I just find it curious who they quote and reference. They were chosen for a reason.

I find it curious too. I just think they say more about their intent by their affirmation of traditions that are opposed to Catholic practice -- believer's baptism, no instruments, Lord's Supper only on Sunday, etc.[/color]

Having read books by most of the signers of CA2005, most of them are considered liberals by their more conservative Church of Christ brethren. What interests me are the names that aren't on the list-names like Doug Foster, Richard Hughes, Leonard Allen, and Carroll Osborne to name a few.

Pax.

[DCR]

DCR,

What I was taught was that the Word is the seed and wherever it is planted it would produce the same crop (excepting the different types of soil). So in a good soil the seed will always produce the good crop - simple New Testament Christians.

And, that is a much better outlook, which I was also taught (I've heard different things from different people... comes from being exposed to different schools of thought in our brotherhood).

But, the way of thinking I described is an over-focus on the mechanics of the organization (the "TRUE" church ceasing to exist/going dormant, meaning an organization with very specific practices).  What you describe is what I am more familiar with and comfortable with... we must focus on individuals coming to Christ and thus becoming members of the body of Christ and adopting a way of life, thus becoming simple New Testament Christians, as you put it.

[spurly]

Interesting thread!