Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

.

I've always thought that article ignores the fact of the internet and the Information Age. people are now able to find out if something is true or has a different possible interpretation in a matter of seconds. The c of c has not been good about educating its members on issues in the wider religious world. They are very insular. Even the "progressive" ones are not really progressive compared to most mainstream denominations.

Turtle wrote:I've always thought that article ignores the fact of the internet and the Information Age. people are now able to find out if something is true or has a different possible interpretation in a matter of seconds. The c of c has not been good about educating its members on issues in the wider religious world. They are very insular. Even the "progressive" ones are not really progressive compared to most mainstream denominations.

Good point. The internet took me from satisfied to the open/exasperated side very quickly. And the more I studied on my own, the more irritated I began to feel about what the coc teaches.

I have a good feeling about Joe Beam. He has been a fixture at Grace Centered for years. He attempted to describe the hard to describe. And I think did it well. I spent many years as an exasperated and still am. See you in heaven where the elders know how play harps. You have eternity to practice. Give me an electric Irish!

With delusions of religious grandeur the CoC - especially the ultra conservative tribes - will continue to walk lockstep with their OT Pharisaical brothers. They utterly refuse to make changes in their belief system regardless of the consequences, and will stick "faithfully" to their timeworn and cherished traditions.

This church has found a religious rut that feels comfortable, and they will continue in the same old judgmental path ... after all, change is confusing and might "shipwreck" their faith.

lvmaus wrote:With delusions of religious grandeur the CoC - especially the ultra conservative tribes - will continue to walk lockstep with their OT Pharisaical brothers. They utterly refuse to make changes in their belief system regardless of the consequences, and will stick "faithfully" to their timeworn and cherished traditions.

This church has found a religious rut that feels comfortable, and they will continue in the same old judgmental path ... after all, change is confusing and might "shipwreck" their faith.

I could not stated it better. The wishes pf my family were more forward looking. The Church membership was growing by leaps and bounds. Today I am pretty sure its size is like it was in mid 1950s all because of one elder that thought the church should be under the control of his very limited view. I never will knowingly put myself under even the marginal control of such. I am unchurched and do not desire such. 43 plus years and still forsaking and damn proud of it. I don't trust politics or religion and see no positives of doing so. I see plenty of evil in both unrecognized by the participants.

.

The problem the Church of Christ has is that any change undermines the falsely held one true church belief. The true church never needs to change or tweek anything. Admitting you need to change or tweek your beliefs cracks that core foundational belief that the CoC is the one true church. If that core belief is admitted to have been wrong then why should the people stay?

It's like Gorbachev telling the people of the USSR they had done things wrong for 70 years and need to do things like the Americans. If that is the case why have a Soviet Union then? You've admitted it was a mistake all along.

Al Foy Abu Wallace wrote:The problem the Church of Christ has is that any change undermines the falsely held one true church belief. The true church never needs to change or tweek anything. Admitting you need to change or tweek your beliefs cracks that core foundational belief that the CoC is the one true church. If that core belief is admitted to have been wrong then why should the people stay?

It's like Gorbachev telling the people of the USSR they had done things wrong for 70 years and need to do things like the Americans. If that is the case why have a Soviet Union then? You've admitted it was a mistake all along.

This is an excellent point. Reading through that Traces of the Kingdom website that others have linked here, I see that the hardcore COC-as-One-True_Church apologists acknowledge that the COC has been evolving over time: they point out "traces" of COC-dom that existed before the Stone-Campbell movement but would most likely not sign on wholesale to what these pre-Campbell groups were all about. Those who have actually taken the time to study the Stone-Campbell history would most likely not agree with everything there either: premillenialism, ecumenism, etc. I wonder when, then, those in the One True Church crowd would say that the COC "got it." When did everything finally get worked out so that it doesn't need to change? The actual pamphlet "The One True Church" was printed by James Cope in 1945, according to Google Books. Was that when they stopped needing to change? Is there anything that current COCers would say still needs to be perfected or even addressed?

Lev

Lev wrote:

Al Foy Abu Wallace wrote:The problem the Church of Christ has is that any change undermines the falsely held one true church belief. The true church never needs to change or tweek anything. Admitting you need to change or tweek your beliefs cracks that core foundational belief that the CoC is the one true church. If that core belief is admitted to have been wrong then why should the people stay?

It's like Gorbachev telling the people of the USSR they had done things wrong for 70 years and need to do things like the Americans. If that is the case why have a Soviet Union then? You've admitted it was a mistake all along.

This is an excellent point. Reading through that Traces of the Kingdom website that others have linked here, I see that the hardcore COC-as-One-True_Church apologists acknowledge that the COC has been evolving over time: they point out "traces" of COC-dom that existed before the Stone-Campbell movement but would most likely not sign on wholesale to what these pre-Campbell groups were all about. Those who have actually taken the time to study the Stone-Campbell history would most likely not agree with everything there either: premillenialism, ecumenism, etc. I wonder when, then, those in the One True Church crowd would say that the COC "got it." When did everything finally get worked out so that it doesn't need to change? The actual pamphlet "The One True Church" was printed by James Cope in 1945, according to Google Books. Was that when they stopped needing to change? Is there anything that current COCers would say still needs to be perfected or even addressed?

Lev

Thank you for the compliment. And you are right about the Traces of the Kingdom website.

On the old board I had delved into some of these churches cited as examples of the Church of Christ before Campbell. It seems the TotK owner thinks if you call your church Church of Christ and practice believers baptism for the forgiveness of sin you are the same as what we have in the CoC today. It's just not so. You find "Church of Christs" in Missouri today that are actually offshoots of the Mormon religion. Also, getting back to TotK one of the ministers said to be a CoC minister was named Hercules Collins. Collins left a lot of writings and records and you can even dig some of them up online. It seems he believed in the pastor as the elder system of church government, endorsed the use of creeds, and even wrote a catechism for his church. And regarding baptism he believed you were saved when you believed and "grew" in your salvation when you followed other commands such as be baptised and so forth. Very Baptist theology if you ask me.

I even emailed a Baptist scholar who wrote a book on Collins about the claim he was a CoC minister and the scholar wrote back the idea was "ridiculous".