We're an ecumenical board, right? Meaning, we represent nearly as many demoninations as there are members. I've been on a board Restoration Heritage that is not ecumenical. It represents only four denominations. Their tagline is, "We're Christians Only, But Not the Only Christians". Well, a little history:

In the early 1800s two guys separately started the same movement. It was intended to be a non-denominational, unity movement to restore 1st century worship. Their names were Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell. They called their church the "Church of Christ". The movements, though similar, had problems. Stone and Campbell both disagreed on how to interpret the scriptures. Both believed that their unity movement should be based solely on the New Testament. Where the scriptures speak, that is doctrine. Where the scriptures are silent, so should the church be silent. Their disagreement shattered the unity movement.

In 1906 there was a huge split that formed the Disciples of Christ. The disagreement - instrumental music. The first century church (and nearly all worship until the early 1800s) was without instruments. The reason was largely one of cost. Few could afford musical instruments, though all could sing.

Today, there are several denominations within the non-denominational restoration movement. The board, Restoration Heritage, addresses four of these larger denominations - namely the Churches of Christ (a capella), the Disciples of Christ, the International churches of Christ and the Christian Church.

To be honest, there should be much agreement between these groups, right? Well, there ain't. I cannot believe the amount of bickering I see (and moderation as well! B) ) between these people who are, essentially, all of the same group. One believes the Holy Spirit was only present during the first century - therefore anyone who believes the Spirit is still active (myself included) is hellbound. Another says that if you are not immersed you are hellbound, regardless of any prior commitment to Christ. I gave my example of accepting Christ in my car and asked "What if I'd died before I made it to church to be baptized?" Yes, I would have been condemned. After all, we are commanded to be baptized.

So, you think there's a lot of dissension here? You oughta see what happens within a group! It's flat ridiculous! Unity, my [expletive deleted]! Yes, I'm hanging out there. I want to see if any unity does come about from the discussion. The board is only two months old and already there are members who have deleted their ids. Why? They believe they will be condemned because they are talking with heretics.

The fun isn't limited to those of the Restoration Heritage. Come on by and enjoy the fun! Anyone can post in the Theology forums. I'm sure we could use a little input from the communities represented here as well! Just don't tell 'em I sent you... :whistle:

Sure, I'll go check it out....anonymously, of course.... B)

You should invite some of them over HERE!! :D

:naughty: Deb, Deb, Deb. Always looking for a fight! :P

B)

I went over & looked around, but alot of the discussion is WAAAAYYY over my head.... :blink:

It just seems to be more symptoms of the greater problem of everyone going at understanding the faith by themselves, rather than looking to the more solid witness of the Church throughout the ages. How can we, in the 21st century, read scripture which had a very different historical context, of which most of us know very little, and think we can fully understand the implications of those things that are vague and know what the exact practices of the early churches were, since the exact details of their worship aren't spelled out in the Bible.

Our various groups try to fill in the blanks, or just leave the blanks, thinking whatever was not written about must be insignificant, but are they really creating an accurate picture of what the Church really was and should be? I don't think so. Look at how much disagreement exists between those who try to recreate things to the best of their capacity, even within the same general branch of protestantism. So does anyone have a more solid foundation, that is not subject to changes based on individual interpretation or changing points-of-view? Before Protestantims, before Roman Catholicism, there was one Universal Church, of which we were all a part. If we retrace our steps, we can find a solid foundation, of which Christ is the Cornerstone. This is the Church which He has filled with His Holy Spirit, promising to preserve it until He returns to judge the living and the dead.

Basil

As I've said before here, and on the Restoration Heritage board, there are basic foundations. They appear in the Nicene and Apostle's Creed. (And, as I've pointed out, the Nicene Creed is an Orthodox creed.)

If we all agree on the foundations of worship, then we only disagree on petty details that are, in reality, moot. For example, the running joke in my heritage: instrumental music. Is that going to condemn you? Some say it will. Is it scriptural? No. But they remain silent where the scripture is silent. There's also a legend that it wasn't even part of the original movement - but that some outsider once said, "If you really practice first century worship, why do you use instruments? The Bible doesn't say the first century church used instruments!"

I got derailed, sorry.

If we all agree on the foundations of worship and agree to disagree on petty details, all that is really left is styles of worship. Gutter likes guitars and lasers. I like a capella southern Gospel. Basil, perhaps you like chants. Given the acceptance of foundations and agreement to disagree, then we can choose how we would like to worship.

So, where are we? We are all Christians with a different style of worship. My point in this whole unity tirade is that those who disagree on the petty details stop condemning the rest. The petty details are not necessary for salvation, and they should not split churches.

The Restoration Heritage forum is an example of desperately seeking unity inside of a single movement. I believe the unity can be achieved throughout the entire universal church - as long as we agree to the foundations and agree to disagree on the petty details - with little or no pain.

To quote President Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks!, "Can't we all just get along?"

Thanks for listening.

Basil,
I agree with most of what you said. The quote, though, I have an issue with.

The Catholic Church believed the masses could not possibly interpret scripture. To prevent the masses from mis-interpreting scripture, they made it illegal for anyone other than a teacher of the word to own a Bible. Few knew the contents of scripture, except priests and monks - and they only shared their knowledge in a dead language which none of their parishioners understood.

Luther, a monk, read scripture and realized that actual scripture was different from what Rome was teaching. He tried to reform the Roman church, so it would more accurately reflect scripture. He knew the Roman church was wrong, so he made it his personal mission to ensure a copy of the New Testament - translated into the local language - was available for every German person. For that, he was declared a heretic.

If we allow only a few to interpret scripture, we could very well fall into the same trap the Catholics had fallen 500 years ago. We are called to test the spirits. If we have no litmus against which to test them, how will we know whether or not the teachings are right?

I would rather have the divisions and splits we now have than to repeat the ordeals of the 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Again - it's the unimportant details that split churches, not the foundations. By focusing on the foundations rather than the details, we can re-unite Christ's church into a world-wide body once again. And it will be called "The Church", not the "Church of Christ (a capella)" or "Community Church" or "Methodist" or "Baptist" or "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Presbyterian"... well, maybe catholic with a small 'c' 'cuz that really means universal.

Thanks for listening.

Also, as a member of the Restoration Heritage - a movement to restore first century worship in modern America - I have come to believe that this movement is not necessarily the right idea. The original goal was to make corporate worship into a model of the first century church. That cannot be done. There are far too many differences.

In an attempt to restore first century worship, they tried to destroy every vestige of current popular worship. It took hold, but they also drove a great many people away from the church altogether. The number of people whose faith was destroyed is huge, but uncounted.

I believe if the same were to happen in the US today, you would have the same reaction. For an interesting perspective on this, check out Sean Palmer's blog. He examines what would be the response were a national religion adopted in the US.

I am not opposed to any true believer who understands the faith as stated in the creeds. That is what diversity is all about. Those who demand that I go beyond the foundations as stated in the creeds - they create problems. When I am told that, though we agree on the foundations, we must agree on the petty details, I will deny fellowship.

Unity demands that we, as humans, agree to disagree on some details. Diversity makes life interesting.

I hope what I've said doesn't come across as comdemnation, because I am in no place to be critical of the path of any other man. I agree that there are some essentials that must be agreed upon and that there are some minor issues which are non-essentials. The biggest problem with unity existing is that people cannot even agree on what is and is not essential, as you've relayed from your experience on that other board. Some think music style is an essential, so they schism or break off from another body based on that alone. What can we do?

I think true unity can only exist when we are really in one Body, and that should be the mystical Body Christ established, not any group created by men through schism. Luther had very good reasons to break from the corrupted Roman Catholic religion, but rather than creating a whole new man-made religion based on human reasoning of the scriptures, he, or his predecessors should have left the corrupted Western Church and remain part of the Universal Church, which has been preserved in the east. If one branch becomes corrupt, God will cut it off, so we should then realign ourselves with a healthy branch, which has preserved the true faith. One corrupted bishop, doesn't invalidate the entire Church, so instead of leaving the Church because one bishop (the Pope) was corrupt, along with many, if not all, of the bishops under him, the reformers should have aligned themselves with the true Church which had remained free of corruption. We can't do much about that now, but we can correct the error they made by entering the Church, which was given for all mankind, now.

Basil

Clay, I agree with your wise words here 100%.

The restriction of allowing the masses access to the scriptures was a terrible corruption that occured in the Roman Catholic Church, after it had departed from the wider Universal Church in 1054 A.D. The Universal Orthodox (right-believing) Church never had such restrictions, in fact, some of our greatest saints are those men who interpretted the scriptures and services of the Church into the common language of each new peoples that were brought into the body of Christ. Google Cyril and Methodius, two men who translated the gospel into the slavic languages, even creating an alphabet to do this (Cyrillic alphabet). Saint Innocent and Saint Herman of Alaska were missionaries from Russia, who translated the gospel into the Aleutian language for the natives there. We have always thought people having access to scripture is very important!

We don't have to be afraid of people having access to the scriptures, but they should be careful not to interpret things alone, outside of the greater witness of the Church, because individuals can and will continue to get it wrong. This is not an attempt to control anyone, but simply to guide them into the correct interpretations, because the Holy Spirit has confirmed the doctrines of the Church to be true, and evidence shows that these doctrines were held from the beginning. So we should read and talk about scripture, but be humble enough to know that we may not understand everything we come upon, because a lot of time has passed and some details were not recorded in scripture, although they have been passed down from the beginning.

Basil

I read with surprise from many sources, including the Lutheran Church, that Luther went to his grave lamenting the direction his Reformation movement took. Luther did not want to split from the Roman Catholics, he wanted to reform it - to fix it. He loved the Roman Catholic Church, but he did not like what it had become.

The armed peasant revolt that took place after he was ex-communicated was as appalling to Luther as it was to the church.

On to other subjects:
Basil,
I appreciate your zeal and passion for the Orthodox Church. I really do. In fact, I share the same zeal and passion for a Christian Unity movement.

There remains one important issue I have, however, with what you and String have repeatedly said about the Orthodox Church. It appears that the Orthodox Church believes its congregants are incapable of understanding scripture without interpretation. I have an issue with this. It leads to the same spoon-feeding that was happening with the RCs at the time of Luther.

If we can't understand it, then why should we read it? We can't understand what we read, so why do we waste our time? There are other things we can do besides read scripture. The church will give us our daily/weekly dose of scripture when we attend.

I believe that our own reading and absorbing of God's Word goes way beyond some guy in a pulpit feeding us in baby steps. If you are not free to read and interpret scripture on your own, how do you know the guy in the pulpit is not a false teacher? Is he laying it down right?

The heated discussions I've become involved in on the Restoration Heritage forum demonstrate quite clearly that some folks believe they are the only ones who have it right - if you don't believe exactly as they do (baptism is a requirement of salvation - not a command to do afterward, instrumental music in worship is evil, but perfectly acceptable outside of corporate worship), you are hellbound. They are also quite convincing in their use of scripture to convey their error. Were I not a reader of scripture on my own, I may have believed their legalistic mandates and fallen into the same rut as them.

As a member of the Church of Christ (a capella), I have to stand up to my brother's congregations and say that we are only saved by grace through faith - not by works that any man should boast. Baptism is a work. Faith is simply that - faith.

I believe there are foundations that we must all agree on as Christians. With the amputating of the Church, I also believe that there are teachings on which we must agree to disagree. These teachings are those which go beyond the basic foundations - such as instrumental music.

The amputations of the Body of Christ are Satan's work. Christ prayed fervently in John 17:20-21 that the Body would be united. That day will come. When it does, it won't be any particular worship style as there is no regulation for worship in the New Testament. When that day comes, you will see cantors alongside guitar pickers alongside gospel quartets alongside pipe organs. Mark my words - unity has nothing to do with style of worship or *-millenialism. Unity has to do with belief in Christ as our Savior, as the paid debt for our sins, as the conquering Hero on the white horse.

There are many ways to worship. Unity means we're not saying other brothers (built upon the same rock) are wrong and we won't have anything to do with them. Unity means we are accepting of our brothers who worship in a style with which we're not comfortable because they, too, worship a risen Christ as their Savior. Unity means we stop shooting at each other and take a collective aim at an enemy who's goal is to destroy the church.

And he's been doing a very good job of it for two-thousand years.

Clay, you go to a church called "The Church of Christ"? I do not know if this is the same but maybe you can help me out. My sister in law, before she was married (she is my husband's sister) belonged to a church called "The Church of Christ" and they claimed to be the only Church of Christ, the one that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against (a lot of churches make this claim, I suppose). It turned out to be a cult that wouldn't get their clutches out of her. She had something called a "disciple leader" that was supposed to disciple her and everyone had one of these. There was a guy she wanted to date, but he had to ask his disciple leader and then his disciple leader talked to her disciple leader and then they got permission to go on a double date. They also told her how much she should give in tithes and offerings, although they said it wasn't required it basically was. They also did not believe in instruments for worship.

When she moved almost 1000 miles to go to school the church contacted The Church of Christ in that city and they called her continually despite her telling them she was not interested -- in fact, one of the major reasons she moved was to get away from this mess.

Every time she is home to visit her family, despite the fact she is now married and has a son she avoids an entire twin cities and will not go there for anything because she is afraid of them finding her and sucking her in again.

Does this sound familiar? I have long wondered about this whole situation.... there are more details too, but this is the basics.

Guidance. We need guidance. The ancient Church has adhered to the same scriptural interpretations and has defended tham and risen up agains heretical interpretations in order to protect the scriptural Truth. The Church doe not in any way discourage reading the Bible or studying, but in order to get the correct understanding, we should not lean on our own understanding of the scriptures, but, rather, turn to those Truths that have been upheld, defended, fought for, for nearly the entire life of Christianity. That guy in the pulpit may very well be wrong. hat is why we goto our ancient teachers, many of which actually died defendig the true interpretaions and meanings of the Holy Scriptures. When we take it up on ourselves to decide and come to a full understanding, what are the chances that we as human beings, are going to be correct? We are so far removed from the context in which the Bible was written, that if we try to understand it with our mdern minds and our current climates, we will most certainly be misguided. Evidence of this misunderstanding and misguidance can be seen by the mere fact that there are 22000 + different interpretations of the same Bible.

The early Church Fathers knew that this would happen, so they fought fervently to preserve the truth, they got together, discussed heresies thjat had arisen, took steps to eradicate them, and fought their hardest to maintain purity in scriptural interpretation.

So many people today say "I will listen to the Holy Spirit and what He tells me" Every single leader of those 25, 000 Christian churches listened to the Holy Spirit. They will swear till they are dead and decayed that the Holy Sprit led them to their beliefs and interpretations. Are they all right? Did the Holy Spirit really lead them in 25000 different directions? Or could it be possible that their human condition caused them to misunderstand, misinterpret, and to be misled?

The Orthodox Church, since it clearly and obviously goes all the way back to Christian origin, has the writings and interpretaions of the early Church Fathers, who were led in unity to the proper interpretations of the scriptures. They weren't led this way or that. they were guided by The Holy Spirit, tney remained in comunion with each other, they never went their own way with what they thought was truth.. The extensive meetings and councils they attended with the sole purpose of praying and listening to God to determine truth from the scriptures is way more than any protestant denomintion would even dare undertake. The Holy Spirit led the ancient christians in the interpretaion and application of scripture and this Truth has withstood the test of time and attack. Nothing in its entire history has deflated the truth God revealed to His people. This truth has been preserved in the Church and maintained and protected.

In the Orthodox Church, we believe that we are weak. Priests and Bishops included. Unless we turn to those truths given by God, upheld by the Church, and died for by martyrs, we will surely become deceived if we rely on our own interpretations, our own "feelings" We encourage reading of the scripures, but greatly discourage private interpretation--it will fail you and lead you in another direction.

Oh to address you comment that the Orthodox Church believes "its congregants are incapable of understanding scripture without interpretation."

Only human pride would make a man think he is intellegent enough to fully understand the scriptures without guidance from those more wise than he..

I personally believe that I am not wise enough to make judgement that my understanding is right. To do so would lead to self-righteousness, spiritual pride, and straight out cockiness. i personally choose to humble myself and listen to the teachings of the Christians who came before me, who really knew what it meant to struggle for the Word of God, who knew what true persecution and suffering was. I know nothing. I am weak. I am distracted by the wiles of this world and am in no place to even try to make an interpretation of the most Holy Word of God...To do so would only proove me a fool..

String, you made some great points.

As far as what happened in the seven ecumenical councils, in which the entire Church came together to defeat false teachings that had sprung up, the bishops who attended from all around the Christian world, searched the scriptures, defended the teachings that had been passed down from the beginning, and prayed, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They didn't create new doctrines, but simply defended what the Church had always believed from the beginning against new heretical teachings, that threatened to lead the Church astray. I think it's very important to clarify that they weren't sitting down with scriptures alone, scratching their heads, trying to understand what was written. They had the backing of the teachings they received from their predecessors leading all the way back to the apostles, and through them to Christ. They didn't have to guess at what the Bible meant, they just had to make their case to persuade those who had been led astray to embrace "o"rthodox belief. Orthodox means "right-belief" or literally "straight" belief, from the same root used in orthodontist, one who straightens teeth.

Basil

That is one -- strike that -- some of the 'heated discussions' I've been involved in on another forum. There are those in what I'll refer to as the Traditional Church of Christ - spawn of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement in the early 1800s. Though I was baptized at a Traditional CofC in 1994 or 1995 (I can't remember when - really important, eh?), I was later repulsed at much of what they taught.

1. We are the only ones going to Heaven: They believe that, since they were the only ones who had 'restored' first-century worship, they were the only ones who were doing it right. Since they were the only ones doing it right, they were the only ones going to heaven. They were also very exclusive - they really didn't want to take many people with them. Kinda like a country club, you could only get in by invitation.
2. Baptism is a requirement of salvation: Yeah, I fell for that one. Though Christ commanded for us to be baptized, it's out of obedience. The only requirement for salvation is accepting Christ's pardon for our sins and believing in Him.
3. Instrumental music is not authorized in worship: The 'spaghetti logic' they use to support this claim is bizarre! I enjoy a capella music in worship. It is truly beautiful in a church where everybody knows and sings their part - you wind up with a gigantic choir. BUT nowhere is this addressed anywhere in the New Testament. Trumpets, harps and tambourines were used in Temple worship. In the New Testament, we are commanded to worship in Spirit. After all, the Temple is inside of us. No musical instrument will fit inside that temple, therefore we cannot use instruments in today's temple. Therefore, instrumental music is not authorized for worship. Not being authorized, it is not allowed. If we worship in a way that is not allowed, we will go the way of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron who were struck dead for offering incense when they were commanded not to.
   Huh?
   See all the hoops I had to jump through to get there? This is truly bizarre. I am now a member of a rebellious CofC that rejects much of that thinking and accepts the teaching of the New Testament as it's written. They won't insert stuff where the NT is silent as the Traditional CofC has done. They won't remove stuff (like the book of Romans) as the Traditional CofC has done. Enough on this one.
4. Women are to remain silent: that means women are to remain barefoot and pregnant. That means women can only sing from their pews, and they better not drown out a man. That means women cannot even pass the collection plate or serve The Lord's Supper.
   That thinking drove my wife away from the church for a while. She became keenly aware that, since she planned to have no children, she was not going to be saved. She was turned around only by attending the Baptist Student Union at college. Not that she converted to a Baptist, but they showed her that the CofC was wrong about this.
   At Bering, our worship minister is a woman. This is equivalent to saying that Jesus was not resurrected in some circles. It is anathema. It is, in my opinion, the right move.

There are a lot of subjects on which I disagree with the Traditional CofC. Though I prefer their style of worship, that's a far cry from stating that it is the only correct style of worship. Why, then, do I continue to attend a CofC? Mostly 'cuz of the a capella music. That's why it took us so long to find a church home in Houston. If we ever leave Houston, I don't know where we'll worship. In San Antonio, there's Oak Hills (Max Lucado used to be a CofC preacher - he took the 'of Christ' off of the Oak Hills Church sign). I don't know if there are similar churches elsewhere.

Thanks for asking. I'll bet you didn't expect a book!

Oops - sorry - re-read your post and I answered a completely different question! :unsure:

This sounds like the "Celestial Church of Christ". I'm not sure where they get there schtick - it's kinda weird. Just look at the name. There are a lot of them here in Houston. So I Googled them. Yeah, they sound like what you described.

I don't know what to suggest. Yeah, it sounds like a cult. Perhaps a restraining order?

Perhaps it is because I desire to become a scholar myself that I bristled at what I read. If I came off a bit string, I apologize.

String, I appreciate your humility and acknowledgement on this subject. I will not argue against your seeking wise guidance. I, too, ask about passages that do not crystallize for me. How, though, do I know that the people I ask have the right answers? Again, they are only people.

Here's the way I see it. After my previous post about where the CofC has gone wrong, and about the RC's restriction of scripture from the common folk, perhaps you can see why I want to understand scripture.

I am very slowly teaching myself Greek with a Strong's dictionary and occasionally using the internet. I would like to learn Greek - not necessarily at a Bible School (since they teach Biblical Greek, they may teach it in such a way that you will interpret the ancient Greek the way they want you to!) but from a secular source that will not corrupt my reading of the ancient scriptures.

Only by reading the original can I hope to interpret it correctly.

I guess I just don't trust people. The Methodists taught me something that did not move me. The Baptists taught me something that I believed was wrong (once you're saved, you can do anything you want - even deny Christ - and you'll avoid Hell). The Trad.CofC taught me something that I believed was wrong. The Protestant Movement was born of being taught wrong. I have seen, through history and first-hand, that I cannot trust people. Therefore, I must have some first-hand interpretation of scripture to rely on. Without it, I may be following a false teacher. Without it, I may be a false teacher myself.

Actually all the beliefs sounded the same as you described in your first post. Whatever happened to your wife planning no children ... don't you guys have a couple?

So no disciple leaders in your experience? Like Bible study leaders except you depended on them like a preschooler to his mother.

Nichole was a blessed accident. Nichole turned our lives around. It's likely that, without Nichole coming along, our lives would have taken drastically different routes. She was born four months after we were married. :blink: Kristen was planned - sort of. We wanted them to be closer in age than 4 1/2 years, but again God has different plans.

No disciple leaders in my experience. But then again, I'm a newcomer to the CofC, and the church we attend is a rebellious teen of the CofC. So, we're a lot different. In fact, we fellowship with Methodists quite often! :shh:

I was reading on another board about the preacher in Selmer TN - and the people who were interviewed on TV kept saying that the CofC is a cult. With my experiences, I would have to disagree. But my experience with the traditional church is limited.

Hmmm.... I have to say.... watch carefully for those cult ways... because I may have uncovered why someone would say that. :unsure: Of course if you are in a new branch then they may have left those ways behind.

The International Church of Christ (which is not a part of the Restoration Movement), based in St. Paul, is the one of which you speak. This link discusses the same things your sister-in-law experienced.

We are free to come and go as we please, even from the stricter, more traditional bodies. I've seen a lot of people do it. This ICC looks like a different monster. I wrote about it here.