Mistruths about the "church of Christ"...

[kersca]

In Defense of the “churches of Christ”
by Adam Kerschenheiter

Several years ago, I met and was dating a young lady that would later become my wife. I was/am a Catholic (adult convert). Her faith was one of the things that I found very attractive about her. She spoke of God and salvation passionately. When I asked her what denomination she belonged to, she defensively retorted by saying that she didn’t belong to a denomination. At first I assumed she belonged to one of the many non-denominational churches out there. Of course, non-denominational often describes many communities that are unofficially affiliated to a larger body. She explained to me, however, that she belonged to the group that calls themselves the “church of Christ”. This group takes offense at being called a denomination. Speaking fairly, the term denomination does not do them justice. . Specifically, she was (and still is) a member of the Roseville church of Christ. This group I had never heard of before I met my wife fascinated me. Accordingly, I have spent a considerable amount of time over the past several years studying their distinctive beliefs and practices.
While doing research concerning the “church of Christ”, I realized that there is a great deal of misinformation about them. Certain groups of people spread unfair and inaccurate information about the beliefs and practices of this group. Specifically, I have found the most incendiary criticism of them by Baptists and Presbyterians. The movement that spawned the “church of Christ”, the Restoration movement, was begun by Baptist and Presbyterian ministers. Doctrinally, they pared away many doctrinal distinctives of those denominations such as original sin, eternal security, predestination/double predestination, and creedal declarations. When the movement was begun their critics called them too “Catholic”, Pelagian, and Sacramentalists. There was and still is a considerable amount of bias there. Instead of disagreeing with their interpretations of scripture, they are accused of ignoring scripture altogether. It doesn’t help matters that the “church of Christ” is predominantly located in the southern United States where these denominations thrive.
Unfairly, people often hurl the accusation that “church of Christ” members believe they earn their own salvation.. With the “church of Christ”, this is technically untrue. They profess salvation through Christ and his atoning sacrifice. Most basically, they believe it is the work of Christ that saves them. Most objections to their beliefs revolve around their understanding of free will and sin. While I do not fully agree with their understanding, it is obviously mischaracterized by their critics.
Another place where biased accusations are leveled against them is their beliefs and practices regarding Baptism. Their views regarding Baptism are described by some with such a bias that it borders on hate speech. Again, while I do not fully agree with “church of Christ” baptismal doctrine, I completely reject those who portray their views with no regard for accuracy. The “church of Christ” does not accept baptismal regeneration in the same sense Lutherans, Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox understand it. Generally speaking, water does not regenerate the person. Therefore it is not sacramental. However, from what I understand, sins are forgiven in Baptism. However, the sins are forgiven by virtue of faith and through the intercession of Christ. Adherence to water baptism is their best efforts to be obedient to Christ’s command. It is not water that saves in their view as much as God in response to their obedience. Of course, their interpretation of scripture extends that obedience to full immersion and believer’s baptism. Critics of this interpretation argue that baptism presents itself as a “work”. They claim that the “church of Christ” argues that one works his way to heaven. While not convinced of their reasoning, I understand they believe they are not so much choosing to be saved as cooperating with God in his prescribed method of justification. Also, because the “church of Christ” does not believe in eternal security, they are simply accepting the beginning of the Christian life. They are regenerated in order to persevere. There is no assurance that all those baptized will inevitably be saved. So, when a person claims that the “church of Christ” feels they are saved by Baptism, they are imposing their own eternal security belief to their doctrines.
Finally, those who criticize the “church of Christ” views misunderstand a fundamental aspect of their teaching. This concept baffled me for quite some time as well. Each congregation within the “church of Christ” is autonomous. I am not saying that each congregation is self governing. Most Christian communities are self governing. The autonomy within the “church of Christ” is much broader than that. Within their community, a governing body of elders have authority over their specific community, and that is very limited. The elders really only speak to things that are scripturally related. They also make decisions regarding the operation of the building and focuses of study for the community. There is no centralized system of governance among different communities. The “church of Christ” also rejects creeds so there is no real agreement of beliefs between communities. What that means is that it is always difficult to say the “church of Christ” believes this or that because there is no common standard other than scripture. Furthermore, it is scripture as it is interpreted by the individual. I have seen some “church of Christ” communities that have a belief that Christ is really and bodily present communion most regard communion as symbolic. Some members are vehemently opposed to abortion while others consider it to be a non-scriptural matter. I admit I am fascinated by how many diverse and completely opposing views are tolerated from community to community.
In the end, it is important that we be fair and accurate when discussing the faith of others. Too often, members of other denominations have been quick to sling poorly researched accusations at the communities that call themselves the “churches of Christ”. Personally, as a Catholic there are many teachings that I have issue with. However, in order for me to even begin to disagree with their theology, I have to take the time to study it. It is quite impossible to disagree with something I do not understand. It is as if I were to stand at a wall and begin pummeling it with my fists without first carefully examining it. Perhaps a close inspection will reveal strengths of the wall. Respecting the craftsmanship and its virtues make the wall more than an object to be torn apart. The wall, albeit imperfect, has goodness and a value. Too many people blindly attack the “church of Christ” without ever really looking at it. All they simply see is a thing to be destroyed.

[Joseph the Worker]

Almost all of us actually came out of the CoC, and I would have to disagree with a lot of your points, but agree with several of them too. Some things like salvation by works are not directly taught, and as you say are "technically" not a part of their theology. At the same time, in practicality, they hold to that teaching, especially with regards to their judgmental attitude towards outsiders who do not "do" exactly what they do. Only those who do exactly what their interpretation of the "pattern" of scriptures indicate can be saved. That's salvation by works in a practical way. Also, with the idea of autonomy, CoCs are not nearly as autonomous as they pretend to be, and depending on whether they are anti or mainstream, their teachings and ideas reflect those of CoCs in their geographic region and by their major publications. They visit each other and mark each other's congregations as "sound" or "liberal" and don't even recognize the baptisms conducted from one to another on many occasions.

Anyhoo, I'll ask the same question that I did in your other thread, are you writing this for a specific purpose or just general thoughts?

[mllevaleur]

I certainly agree people should be fair to CoC members when discussing with them, just as we should be fair to any person of faith when discussing with them and never rely on straw men arguments and misconceptions (as so many do when arguing against Catholicism!)

I admit I do roll my eyes a bit when talking with some baptists and faith-only types who say about the CoC, "They think baptism is necessary! See! Salvation based on works!" Yeah, Mr Baptist, I know what you're trying to say but, well, that's not the best example because baptism is important and efficacious...

But, having grown up in the CoC, there is an implicit emphasis on human potential to "just say no" to sin that tends to result in a semi-pelagian, if not fully pelagian outlook, completely unconsciously on their part of course. They just don't have a full understanding of the workings of God's grace, and so they often end up missing the mark and erring a bit too closely to works-based salvation, though they do so with good, sincere intentions in trying to counter the misguided faith-only doctrines of other churches. Alas, reacting too strongly to one problem and ending up on the opposite extreme is human nature...it's why we need the Church to guide is down that narrow, balanced middle of the road to Truth!

Instead of disagreeing with their interpretations of scripture, they are accused of ignoring scripture altogether.

And that's precisely what I accused all those evil "denominations" out there of doing as a CoC member, so that's something both sides need to work on.

Anyway, like Joseph said, since pretty much all of us came out of the CoC here, we tend to rely on personal experience and knowledge of what we were taught, so no straw men here. Did you write that for a blog or on another board or something?

[Marcus]

Troll?

[Marcus]

My computer keys kept sticking so I never could type what I wanted. At first I thought you were pulling our chain. Now I think you are a well meaning Catholic trying to tell us about the faith that many of us grew up in. You made many of the points that I originally thought to be true as well at first. However I made a comment on your first thread that I still hold to. Do what I say, now what I do....and God help us if you don't do what I do too. You can't win for losing. It's kind of like going to a knife fight fight in the days of Moses with a bazooka. The bazooka is your understanding about the true Church of Christ and they just think you're an evil god. Kind of a crude analogy. But it makes sense in my head.

[kersca]

I had written this essay because I felt there was a lot of misinformation out there. I wanted to write this piece to address that so that a person searching around could find an unbiased view. I agree with you as far as the CoC having posible pelagian or semi-pelagian beliefs. This seems especially true when it ciomes to the origins of faith. They seem to downplay or discount the supernatural call in respoonse to the Calvinist irrestable call. In this, they seem to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I am working on a paper that addresses that very case. As always, I am doing my best to write it as charitably as posssible.
I do not agree with the CofC and am firmly planted in the true Church of Christ (Tiber swim team 1997). However, I often get into discussions with people of other faiths that are slanderous towards the CofC and when they do this I get defensive because my wife is a member of their ecclesiastical community.
Thanks alot for the comments.
Adam

[mllevaleur]

This seems especially true when it ciomes to the origins of faith. They seem to downplay or discount the supernatural call in respoonse to the Calvinist irrestable call. In this, they seem to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Yes, precisely!

I can certainly understand your desire to be fair and charitable and to defend the Coc from unfair/untrue criticisms, especially because of your wife, it's a noble goal! You'll have to forgive us if we at first seemed a little hesitant, in the past we've had CoC members come here to argue with us, and I've had to make strict rules about that to avoid ugly debates and such here. Obviously you're not here to do that. Thanks for explaining a bit more, and thank you for your post!

[Joseph the Worker]

. They seem to downplay or discount the supernatural call in respoonse to the Calvinist irrestable call. In this, they seem to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I am working on a paper that addresses that very case.

For some reason, I believe that the deepest parts of CoC theology are a gut reaction against Calvanism. Part of the reason I had no clue about original sin or predestination or any of those topics was that the only thing they taught was that Calvanists were wrong. I've said this before, but I even attended a "gospel meeting" where the preacher pitted St. Augustine vs. Pelagius and claimed Pelagius was a 1st Century Christian and St. Augustine was a Calvanist.

[mllevaleur]

For some reason, I believe that the deepest parts of CoC theology are a gut reaction against Calvanism.

You're totally right, I'm learning more about this in the book I mentioned. It makes sense since Campbell had a Presbyterian background.

[Marcus]

That makes sense to be too.

[kersca]

I agree that the CofC was an overreaction to calvinism. To me, it seems the heart of the matter is the relationship between faith and reason. Calvinism disregards reason and has an "odd" defenition of free will. In response, the CofC seems to rely too heavily on human free will and discount the aide of Grace. The call to faith, baptism, and perseverence are too reliant on personal choice and fortitude in the CofC. On the other hand, the Calvinists are at the other end of the spectrum and do not account for free will.
Adam

[prairie]

For some reason, I believe that the deepest parts of CoC theology are a gut reaction against Calvanism.

You're totally right, I'm learning more about this in the book I mentioned. It makes sense since Campbell had a Presbyterian background.

Yes! Yes! Yes! I attend a PCA church with my husband on Sunday mornings. It is almost eerie how similar the Presby's (especially "conservative' Presby's) are to the COC and yet how they argue opposite extremes of many doctrines.