Posted on 05/01/2006 7:14:29 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[caps and emphasis in the original]
One of the three major movements within the Campbellite family of American Protestantism, and the one most recent in origin (although the Disciples' "Restructure" dates only to 1968). Its separate identity begins officially with action taken at a Christian Church convention in Cincinnati in 1927. By 1971 this body of independent congregations had sufficient particularity and cohesion in its own eyes to request a separate listing in the Yearbook of American Churches.
This "undenominational" fellowship stands to the right of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH (DISCIPLES OF CHRIST) and to the left of the CHURCHES OF CHRIST, the two other movements within the CAMPBELLITE TRADITION, both of which are indigenously American. "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" is the name by which it is commonly known, but its aversion to denominational character means that no official name has been or can be designated. It is also known as the "middle group," the "Centrists," "Independent Christian Churches," or "Christian Churches,'' or ''Christian Churches/Churches of Christ." A single congregation is most often referred to as a "Christian Church" but sometimes as a "Church of Christ," the latter despite the clear separation between this "middle group" and the non-instrumental Campbellites regularly (but also not officially) called Churches of Christ.
Like the other two Campbellite bodies, this fellowship traces its origins to RESTORATIONISM, a theme with roots in the thinking of the Protestant Reformers. This theme took shape as the Restoration Movement in early nineteenth-century America, which was characterized by a determination to adhere rigorously to the Bible, especially in matters of congregational organization and practice. As led by Thomas and ALEXANDER CAMPBELL and BARTON W. STONE, these Christians intend (in paraphrase) to "speak where the Scriptures speak" and "to be silent where the Scriptures are silent." In practice, the focus fell less on theology than on how to organize congregational life and how to carry out public worship. The recovery and duplication of "New Testament Christianity" was its hallmark from the beginning.
The passion to restore the patterns of Primitive Christianity continues to animate these "Independent Christian Churches." Indeed, that is their stock-in-trade, their only reason for existence. As they see it, the Disciples of Christ wing has largely abandoned the Restorationist concern in favor of ecumenicity, which also was a major commitment of Campbell; however, it was to be "undenominational" rather than explicitly cooperative Christianity, especially in the earlier years of his career. On the other side, the Churches of Christ are viewed as having turned conviction into legalism, especially on the use of instrumental music in services of congregational worship. It should be noted that on the classic theme of Restoration, however, the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ fellowship hold much more in common with the Churches of Christ than with the Disciples of Christ.
Thus the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ branch of the family is more "conservative" than "liberal"; it remains committed to the words of the Bible, bent on retaining local-church independence. It stands closer to rationalism than to any other hermeneutical or epistemological method; it rejects all "manmade creeds"; it is highly self-conscious about its particular nature and mission. At the same time, it repudiates legalism and has a generally open, cooperative, and respectful attitude toward other bodies of Christians. It is as firm in its conviction that we are "Christians only" (a slogan from the first generation of the movement) as it is in its rejection of "we are the only Christians." The fellowship honors the qualities of being firm, solid, uncompromising, and earnest. This is a people who live by an acknowledged authority, who are very clear on the commission of the New Testament to Christians and on their mission to embody with purity and scrupulosity the belief and practice of the primitive church.
The Churches of Christ had become a specifiable branch of the Campbellite family in the public understanding by 1906. However, as a regional (Southern) movement having fewer and fewer fraternal ties with Northern Disciples, it was taking shape as the Civil War began and was informally recognizable as a separate body of like-minded independent churches no later than the 1880s. The Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, in somewhat similar fashion, were taking shape before the actual break in 1927. Many thousands who had maintained their connection with the Disciples "grew increasingly restive in the fellowship." The Cincinnati-based Christian Standard led a swelling outcry against the "liberalizing" and "modernizing" trends among Disciples, especially on the subject of biblical criticism. In a 1927 "preaching assembly" called by veteran evangelist P. H. Welshimer, these more traditional and authority-minded congregations chose to go their own way. As a result, the North American Christian Convention was born. ("Convention," rather than "Church," is used to indicate that no corporate decisions are binding; instead congregations voluntarily convene to engage matters of common concern.)
Demographically, it is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) with whom the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ fellowship is closely linked. The heartland of its strength is approximately the same: from western Pennsylvania across the Midwestern states to Missouri and Iowa in the West. Sizable membership also prevails, however, in Kentucky (in both cases), the state of primary origination. Several other Southern states reflect notable growth, especially since World War II; Oklahoma, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina all have more than 150 churches and 25,000 members. Kentucky's figures are 427 and 75,000; Missouri's are 320 and 52,000. The total estimated membership nationwide was one million in 1982. Unlike sister fellowships within the Campbellite family, the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ are also strong in northern California, Oregon, and Washington.
More committed to Bible colleges than to theological seminaries, their congregations support 44 such colleges. There is one liberal arts college, Milligan, located at Johnson City TN and four graduate schools of religion, one at Johnson City and another in Cincinnati OH.
Bibliography. Directory of the Ministry, 1982: A Yearbook of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ; Robert O. Fife, David E. Harrell, and Ronald E. Osborn, Disciples and the Church Universal; James DeForest Murch, Christians Only; William J. Richardson, ea., Christian Doctrine; William Robinson, Biblical Doctrine of the Church; Dean E. Walker, Adventuring for Christian Unity; C. Robert Wetzel, ed., Essays m New Testament Christianity.
SAMUEL S. HILL UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
:-)
So based on your post #17, above, you believe your fellow "churches of Christ" have added to the Word of God?
I feel that if someone makes it a salvation issue, then they have added to the Word of God. If that is their belief, and they don't force that belief on anyone, then I don't see a problem.
What is the purpose of water baptism, according to Scripture?
Why did you ask if I read the thread about being a Gnostic?
Baptism is a Sign and Seal instituted by God as a visible emblem of our salvation. The purpose is to demonstrate that just as surely as water washes away the soil from our bodies (1 Peter 3:21), the sacrificial blood of Jesus washes away the sin from our souls (Romans 6:3-4).
***. However, I fail to find any qualifications of the baptizer in the New Testament, and that is what matters.***
Yet when JOHN was baptizing, the pharasees came to him and demanded, "By what authority are you doing this!"
And Christ asked them, "John's baptism, is it of God or man?"
Authority matters.
***If there are no qualifications for the baptizer found in the New Testament, then adding qualifications would be adding to the Word of God, which is wrong.***
Your motto...
Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.
Show me ONE person in the bible who was baptized by an unbeliever or by an unbaptized person.. Just one.
I've never attended or heard of a church of Christ that had 'qualifications' for a person who baptizes another. It is true that many coCs would look dubiously on a baptism administered in, say, a Baptist church, but only because of that church's teachings on baptism, *not* the identity or spiritual condition of the person physically doing the baptism.
After all, someone had to go first back in the first century A.D., and in any case holding such a silly extra-biblical standard would negate any confidence in salvation, because how would I know that the person who baptized the person who baptized the person who baptized me met the 'qualifications'?
The first one.
Churches of Christ *Ping*
****Show me ONE person in the bible who was baptized by an unbeliever or by an unbaptized person.. Just one.
The first one.***
And just which one was that? Adam or John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. Yet even HE felt he needed to be baptized by Jesus. Further more, John was of the Priestly class of Levites and already had the authority being a Levite.
John's baptism was inadequate: Acts 19:1-5.
And just how many have you attended? Because no matter how your local church preaches on it, the churches of Christ lack any overarching or binding theology or creed to keep their congregations doctrinally homogeneous. Barring a binding doctrinal creed, any congregation can believe just about anything and still call themselves a "church of Christ".
Besides, I can name at least one congregation who held such a view, and they were a church of Christ (Restorationist) too. How am I to know they were any less "1st century" than you are?
Well, no instruments during worship makes for a lame singalong- but I can get past that. The real rough part is dealing with the 'no makeup on women' policy.
Ugh.
John's baptism was a baptism of repentance from sins- whereas Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Woohoo!!
Was that a serious question?
One.
Eph. 4. Make every effort to keep the unity of Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Lord and Father of all. . .
Doesn't matter what men say. Never has, never will.
As a member, about seven, and all of those would be characterized as conservative congregations. But I have a good knowledge of many others, and family connections to several (two of my brothers plus my father-in-law are all preachers in churches of Christ).
Because no matter how your local church preaches on it, the churches of Christ lack any overarching or binding theology or creed to keep their congregations doctrinally homogeneous. Barring a binding doctrinal creed, any congregation can believe just about anything and still call themselves a "church of Christ".
True (but then, there's nothing to stop any independent group from labelling itself 'Catholic', 'Mormon' or whatever else). There is no denominational hierarchy that controls doctrinal orthodoxy. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to know or describe what 'most' churches of Christ do and teach. In fact, the Wikipedia article does a good job of this, and even includes a section on this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_christ#Rebaptism_controversy.
Who has that policy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.