Anti churches

[teresa]

Anti-churches refer to themselves as "non-institutional churches", or sometimes "conservative churches".

Excerpt from one of Petros' blogs: I had always been taught that the Churches of Christ split from the Disciples of Christ and Christian Church when they formed the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849. What we were taught was that missionary societies, in and of themselves, were unbiblical, an organization bigger than the local congregation, with no authorized organizational structure in the New Testament. Churches (local congregations) were authorized in the New Testament to send out missionaries, but not a larger organization.

What we were not told was that the American Christian Missionary Society our sect split over had taken an abolitionist stand. Further we were not told that the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians split at exactly the same time (North vs South) over abolition vs slavery. And that most of the Churches of Christ were in the South, and the Christian Church and Disciples were in the North.

There is still doctrine in the Churches of Christ, non-institutional (NI), against any organization on earth, greater than the local congregation, to do the work Christ assigned to the local congregations. There is still rampant racism as well--not overt racism, which is taught against--but I had never seen a black person in a congregation I attended until I was 14 years old. The Churches of Christ are strong only in the South, and areas where southerners moved to, or where slavery was strong in the north and west.

[longdistancerunner]

Teresa: Thanks for the interesting information. The stats say Texas and Tennessee have the most coc almost certainly Tennesse has the most per capita, followed by Alabama. I personally have also noticed a lot of them in parts of Missouri also. East Tn, particularly northeast TN is extremely fundamentalist. If you travel in very rural TN you will see an incredible number of primitive baptist churches which only differ in a few ways from coc's. I guess the reason for so many in TN is its proximity to Kentucky where the restoration movement began.

[B.H.]

I was raised in a no sunday school Church of Christ. they used little communion cups though.

The Bible says the church is to assemble together per Hebrews 10. It's okay to study the bible in groups as long as those groups are not considered to be an actual church worship assembly. The argument bible class was considered a church assembly was based on the fact that the class brethren used the bible verses forbidding a woman to teach in 1 Cor 13 and I Tim 2 to forbid them teaching sunday school, or at least to men and baptized boys. By using those verses forbidding a woman to teach in the assembly to forbid them to teach sunday school they affirm, probably accidentally and without thinking it through, that their classes are a worship assembly of the church though unscriptural because the people are not together per Heb 10.

[Ivy]

I was raised in a no sunday school Church of Christ. they used little communion cups though.

The Bible says the church is to assemble together per Hebrews 10. It's okay to study the bible in groups as long as those groups are not considered to be an actual church worship assembly. The argument bible class was considered a church assembly was based on the fact that the class brethren used the bible verses forbidding a woman to teach in 1 Cor 13 and I Tim 2 to forbid them teaching sunday school, or at least to men and baptized boys. By using those verses forbidding a woman to teach in the assembly to forbid them to teach sunday school they affirm, probably accidentally and without thinking it through, that their classes are a worship assembly of the church though unscriptural because the people are not together per Heb 10.

They could just pound the joy right out of you with their legalistic arguments.

[B.H.]

True, and technically the non class people are right in my opinion based on strict logic. But it really doesnt do anyone any good. the minute a class user admits its illogical to use those verses to stop a woman from teaching men in sunday school the non class arguments falls flat. it's not false just not applicable anymore. most of the non class churches didnt think it was something to disfellowship over anyway. the more mainline people pushed them to do it more out of mainline embarrassment at their existence and fear losing converts.

[SolaDude]

Isn't it interesting that they would call themselves "anti" when that's not in scripture. Or curious that they would call themselves "non-institutional" when that terminology similarly is not in those scriptures they worship obsessively.

[Ivy]

Isn't it interesting that they would call themselves "anti" when that's not in scripture. Or curious that they would call themselves "non-institutional" when that terminology similarly is not in those scriptures they worship obsessively.

Sola, actually they don't call themselves "anti"; the "liberals" called them that to poke fun. And I don't remember them calling themselves "non-institutional". As I recall it, they wanted to be called "conservatives". Or, as I heard a former friend pronounce them: "Sound". A "sound" church.

But I could be wrong on any one of these points; I have been out of that loop for many years. And you're right. What happened to "Bible names for bible things"? None of those names are in the book.

[SolaDude]

What happened to "Bible names for bible things"? None of those names are in the book.

Yeah, in Acts they were called "The Way" and there is a church that calls itself just that, so that would seem to be a more Biblical designation than the "Church of Christ"

[Ivy]

What happened to "Bible names for bible things"? None of those names are in the book.

Yeah, in Acts they were called "The Way" and there is a church that calls itself just that, so that would seem to be a more Biblical designation than the "Church of Christ"

Yeah!! But, too "cultish"?

[Lerk]

Isn't it interesting that they would call themselves "anti" when that's not in scripture. Or curious that they would call themselves "non-institutional" when that terminology similarly is not in those scriptures they worship obsessively.

Sola, actually they don't call themselves "anti"; the "liberals" called them that to poke fun. And I don't remember them calling themselves "non-institutional". As I recall it, they wanted to be called "conservatives". Or, as I heard a former friend pronounce them: "Sound". A "sound" church.

But I could be wrong on any one of these points; I have been out of that loop for many years. And you're right. What happened to "Bible names for bible things"? None of those names are in the book.

This directory (http://goodfight.com/churches/) from the early days of the World Wide Web (horribly out of date like all websites from way back, and the Texas part of which I hand edited the HTML for way back then because that was important to me then) referred to this branch as "congregations that would describe themselves as 'conservative and non-institutional'."

I would say that the average member has no idea about any of that, but I think the term "non-institutional" came from within the group, as a way to distinguish the denomination, er, sect, er, branch, uh, congregations from the ones who called them "antis".