Christmas Eve on Wednesday

[Lev]

I have no particular beef with a church being autonomous - in fact I prefer this approach - but not the way many churches implement the idea. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I literally despise churches being under the control of a foundation, board, person, or any other centralized governing body. At least if a church is TRULY autonomous they don't copy each other's mistakes ... if one church is horrible, it doesn't have to mean all other churches will be infected as well.

The COC seems to be at best quasi-autonomous. It has no official board or governing body, yet still tends to arrive at the same conclusions from one 'autonomous' church to another. For clear, scriptural directives this would be a sign of all churches arriving at the same scriptural conclusion. But for admittedly traditional practices like Wednesday night meetings, twice-Sunday meetings, the prevalence of phrases like "guide, guard, and direct us," the specific method of communion, the practice of hiring a preacher, acceptable dress for worship services, choice of hymnal, and even some specific doctrines with shaky scriptural foundations (or none at all) such as not celebrating Christmas or Easter, it's clear that there is some influence from one congregation to another. It would be an infinitesimally low chance of these 'traditional' practices just happening to be the same from one truly-autonomous church to another.

My point in all this is: if the COC would own up to the fact that it is not simply a collection of autonomous groups of Christians then it would start to acknowledge that it is a denomination. This might take a while. But it's the first step toward participation in a real ecumenism, which in my opinion is the thing that the COC needs most if it's ever going to survive and be effective toward its stated goals. I realize that for many ex-COCers, whether the COC survives or not doesn't matter. For some, it would be better if it did not. That's fine by me. But since I, like many of us here, still have many friends and family members in the COC, and since I still consider all COCers as part of my spiritual family, I continue to want what's best for them. At this point, I see the acknowledgement of the COC's status as a denomination of the Christian church and the development of a willingness to acknowledge and, when necessary, work together with Christians of other denominations as the only way forward for this small, backward, soon-to-be-irrelevant group of people.

Lev

[lvmaus]

I have no particular beef with a church being autonomous - in fact I prefer this approach - but not the way many churches implement the idea. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I literally despise churches being under the control of a foundation, board, person, or any other centralized governing body. At least if a church is TRULY autonomous they don't copy each other's mistakes ... if one church is horrible, it doesn't have to mean all other churches will be infected as well.

The COC seems to be at best quasi-autonomous. It has no official board or governing body, yet still tends to arrive at the same conclusions from one 'autonomous' church to another. For clear, scriptural directives this would be a sign of all churches arriving at the same scriptural conclusion. But for admittedly traditional practices like Wednesday night meetings, twice-Sunday meetings, the prevalence of phrases like "guide, guard, and direct us," the specific method of communion, the practice of hiring a preacher, acceptable dress for worship services, choice of hymnal, and even some specific doctrines with shaky scriptural foundations (or none at all) such as not celebrating Christmas or Easter, it's clear that there is some influence from one congregation to another. It would be an infinitesimally low chance of these 'traditional' practices just happening to be the same from one truly-autonomous church to another.

My point in all this is: if the COC would own up to the fact that it is not simply a collection of autonomous groups of Christians then it would start to acknowledge that it is a denomination. This might take a while. But it's the first step toward participation in a real ecumenism, which in my opinion is the thing that the COC needs most if it's ever going to survive and be effective toward its stated goals. I realize that for many ex-COCers, whether the COC survives or not doesn't matter. For some, it would be better if it did not. That's fine by me. But since I, like many of us here, still have many friends and family members in the COC, and since I still consider all COCers as part of my spiritual family, I continue to want what's best for them. At this point, I see the acknowledgement of the COC's status as a denomination of the Christian church and the development of a willingness to acknowledge and, when necessary, work together with Christians of other denominations as the only way forward for this small, backward, soon-to-be-irrelevant group of people.

Lev

Unfortunately the CoC idea of autonomy isn't very specific, they borrow/share their understanding of Scripture and traditional beliefs from other churches within the accepted brotherhood, yet each group continues to profess church autonomy when actually they are just a loose confederacy of copycat churches.

While many of us have a lifetime of family and friends in the CoC, and surely want some drastic changes in their belief system, they basically just don't see themselves as being the problem ... it's us that's haywire and considered to be reprobates.

Admitting they are a denomination would be extremely difficult in view of their history of isolationism. These hard-boiled legalistic tribes won't even acknowledge the possibility that there might be a few Christians scattered throughout the denominational world, and they rarely, if ever combine resources with any denominational group to help others.

I agree, the CoC is becoming irrelevant right before our eyes, and yet they find it virtually impossible to change their direction. Why make changes when your perfect!

[zeek]

.

[lvmaus]

The churches that can trace their true origins back to the Stone-Campbell movement lost all chance and hope of true autonomy as soon as the denominations setup colleges and preacher training schools and "brotherhood publications" to keep an eye on and report who was teaching or practicing what. Once you have a professional clergy that is being indoctrinated by the same revered faculty for decades the chance of anyone taking an objective look at the scriptures and arriving at a different conclusion becomes very slim and the few times it does happen that individual is declared unsound and shunned. CoC congregations still make the claim of autonomy because that seems to lend more legitimacy to the notion that we only follow the Bible and the fact that all these autonomous congregations arrive at pretty much the same place proves we've got it right.

You're right, it's unlikely - probably impossible - for these churches to be autonomous given all the scrutiny they endure from so many sources. Still like the idea, just not the implementation.

The Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, among several other brotherhood rags, have helped created a confederacy of churches with no backbone, or willingness to take an independent stand.

[Lev]

The Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, among several other brotherhood rags, have helped created a confederacy of churches with no backbone, or willingness to take an independent stand.

Yet they still claim to have "no creed but the Bible."

Lev

[B.H.]

I believe the Church of Christ to be in error and under the spell of Satan. Therefore I care nothing for its continued existence.

[zeek]

.

[Moogy]

I believe the Church of Christ to be in error and under the spell of Satan. Therefore I care nothing for its continued existence.

As a muslim wouldn't this view hold true for all of christianity and judaism as well as any other "nonMohamadian" belief system?

Well, I am Christian, and I don't hold this view of other religions. (As for the COC, there are some really bad things they embrace, but I don't consider them satanic, just deluded.)

[Lev]

I believe the Church of Christ to be in error and under the spell of Satan. Therefore I care nothing for its continued existence.

As a muslim wouldn't this view hold true for all of christianity and judaism as well as any other "nonMohamadian" belief system?

Other end of the pendulum swing: aren't we all (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) "people of the book" in Islam's view? I've carried Arabic prayers in the pocket of my hunting jacket so I could recite them the moment before the gunshot and provide Halal venison for my Muslim friends. Can a person of the book get a break?

Lev

[B.H.]

The Christians and Jews are called "the people of the book in the Quran" and there is a good reward for those who are sincere servants of Allah in their somewhat misguided faith. Allah is kind and gracious to all.

However, the CoC is deluded by Satan in my opinion. I think most of them are aware their doctrines are inconsistent and most have a hint their history is a fraud. But they willfully persist in such error, not in sincere but mistaken honest intentions. This is why I say they are in error AND under the spell of Satan. Satan tempts people to believe in lies and stay living in them even after the truth comes to light.