Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

Okay...really, how many times during your growing up years (or any other time) in the CofC did you hear repetitions of the same basic themes in the sermons recycled over time??......honestly, it seemed to me to become a predictive thing....perhaps about every year it all started over again...warmed over, recoated, rearranged, recycled....

And really, if the New Testament is seen as the finite characterization of your faith, that is, just reading it and talking about it is all there is....then sooner or later ISTM it is going to lead you to a brick wall....at which you say "I think I've heard it all and you know what, I think I've gotten the point...."

After almost 20 years of going to a coc service thrice weekly, I've come to the point where every single sermon I've heard before. I know exactly what the preacher will say and which verses he'll use as his prooftexts. I am learning nothing new.

It was when I abandoned the CENI-S idea and the "pattern for the work and worship of the church" idea that I started discovering so many new ideas.

A liturgical system moves regularly through the year, so you actually MOVE LOGICALLY through a systematic teaching. At a coc, you would hear the same topics multiple times, randomly distributed through the year, with the only real touchpoints being the annual Eastern sermon about why we don't celebrate Easter at Easter, and the annual Christmas sermon, ditto.

It seems it was very important to say that 'we aren't like everybody else', but not so important to explain exactly HOW we weren't like everybody else, really. I can't count how many times I was told 'we aren't like Baptists' , without any explanation of exactly HOW we weren't like Baptists.

agricola wrote: It seems it was very important to say that 'we aren't like everybody else', but not so important to explain exactly HOW we weren't like everybody else, really. I can't count how many times I was told 'we aren't like Baptists' , without any explanation of exactly HOW we weren't like Baptists.

And often their view of what these other groups (such as Baptists) believe is incorrect. They also will state that the other groups are not honestly reading the Bible.

On Facebook, I remember a Southern Baptist friend of mine once posting that he had gone through the entire SBC statement of faith to verify the Bible verses mentioned, and he found that it was all correct. The coc would say they're not taking an honest reading of the Bible. I have looked at some of the Baptist beliefs that coc condemns (like why they believe they're saved at the point of faith and not at the point of baptism), and I could see where they could honestly believe that based on what was said in those verses. I don't think they're being dishonest about reading the Bible. I think 5 people can read the same Bible passage and come up with 5 different meanings, all being honest in their reading. Even coc'ers will disagree about minor things and say that that's ok. It's just certain topics they've deemed as salvation issues that you can't have different interpretations.

I remember a John Ankerberg show where he anchored a discussion between several CofC guys and some other Christian ministers...when it got to what one would think would be a simple discussion of faith, I'll never forget the convoluted arguments the CofC guys made to convince everyone else that "faith" contained so much more than what everyone else on the stage had been discussing as belief....at which point of course he added the other 4 or 5 steps to salvation in quite a disjointed attempt to redefine faith throughout all of scripture...with perplexing looks from the audience....they really looked like, excuse the french, idiots, up there, really....you know, where you really in the final analysis feel sorry for them.....

John Ankerberg ended the show with a simple Greek interpretive breakdown of Acts 2:38, showing that "remission of sins" was connected grammatically in that awkward verse to the verb "repent", not to baptism....again showing how consistent that was with all of scripture from Genesis on....that is, God didn't suddenly just change the game of repentance for the forgiveness of sins....

Anyway, what to me is so absurd about their worn argument is that faith involves everything in our lives...prayer, our coming, our going, our breathing.....that's the whole point of it ISTM in all of scripture.....in other words, you mean to tell me CoC dudes that prayer is not a part of your complicated umbrella of "things" you must have before you can be deemed to have faith??

Shrubbery wrote:

agricola wrote: It seems it was very important to say that 'we aren't like everybody else', but not so important to explain exactly HOW we weren't like everybody else, really. I can't count how many times I was told 'we aren't like Baptists' , without any explanation of exactly HOW we weren't like Baptists.

And often their view of what these other groups (such as Baptists) believe is incorrect. They also will state that the other groups are not honestly reading the Bible.

On Facebook, I remember a Southern Baptist friend of mine once posting that he had gone through the entire SBC statement of faith to verify the Bible verses mentioned, and he found that it was all correct. The coc would say they're not taking an honest reading of the Bible. I have looked at some of the Baptist beliefs that coc condemns (like why they believe they're saved at the point of faith and not at the point of baptism), and I could see where they could honestly believe that based on what was said in those verses. I don't think they're being dishonest about reading the Bible. I think 5 people can read the same Bible passage and come up with 5 different meanings, all being honest in their reading. Even coc'ers will disagree about minor things and say that that's ok. It's just certain topics they've deemed as salvation issues that you can't have different interpretations.

When I asked 'what do Baptists (or any other denomination) believe?' I was told I didn't need to know what they believed, because they were wrong and we were right, and that was all I needed to know.

You know what? I found that a very unsatisfactory answer.

Now that I am in a liturgical setting the whole year is pretty well mapped out and surprisingly isn't all too boring. I think it is good for the priest as well not having to come up with a topic every Sunday, it is already there! Early on my wife wondered about the regularity of the readings and important days that were remembered. Now after some time and a few cycles, it is sort of a marker of time and in Orthodoxy one event sets the person up for the next event.

For example, the coming weeks lead into the Lenten period with each week slowly winding down and preparing for the long fasting period of Lent.

The readings are set the only thing not set is the sermon by the priest which is left up to him. I think the trend for sermons is to be brief and to mirror the gospel and epistle or saint of the day. Usually broken into a couple of different places: the main sermon, closing remarks and then announcements at the very end. At least that is how our priest chooses.

Some CoC's that I have been at or known well covered the spectrum of totally random (which I think leads to a lot of repetition) or well structured which is usually the result of the preacher's personality or well organized elders. But either way, it is a mind set of following the NT pattern (another thread) that promotes autonomy, independence in doctrine and rejection of established traditions.

We celebrate a liturgy that dates to the late 4th century and had been based on, what writers of the time called "ancient". This goes to the growing point Agri made in another place and I think is appropriate when trying to understand the history of "church practice". The CoC tends to cherry pick what they like from the early writers, see Justin the Martyr's recollection about Sunday worship, or the actions of Pope Leo of Rome in the 5th century to decry the terrible practice of Christmas.

So, if it is old does it make us right and them wrong. Absolutely not, only that I view Orthodoxy as a more full expression of Christianity. The problem I had with the CoC was the rigidity and the dismissal of historical reality.

It doesn't matter which version of Chrisrianity a person affiliates with their dogma will be continuously repeated. And this practice isn't limited to religion. Any group with an agenda will do the same thing. This process is successful because it teaches, trains, & reaffirms the groups message continuously.

Those that agree with the teaching call it education, critics call it indoctrination. It depends on whose Ox is being gored.