Disciples of Christ - The first non denominational church?

[Sors]

This is probably going to be pretty long, so I apologize to anyone that does not want to read it.

I want to start off by clarifying that I do know that Disciples of Christ is an actual denomination. I was baptized in the church, but have not been associated with it for 25 years or so. But I have been reading more about the Restoration and Stone Campbell Movement which came along pretty much with the "2nd Great Awakening". A few things stuck me as odd about the movement (to be fair I have not done a deep dive into the literature yet..so please correct anything you think I am getting wrong). The first is that it gave birth to some of the more fringe Christian groups. Around this time you have the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon churches. They do have the basic belief that Jesus is the son of God, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead 3 days later, and through faith in him we have eternal life. They are also non trinitarian and believe in additional revelation which I'd say causes a lot of problems.

But the whole idea of the Disciples of Christ was that it boiled everything down in Christianity to a certain few points which I referenced earlier. I wont talk about the Church of Christ split right now, but I think the idea that the one true Church is just a community a believers... is a really nice idea.

So to bring this back into the idea of Non-Denominational..which is really the point in this part of the forum. The Disciples of Christ has pretty much abandoned the idea of those few defining Characteristics I mentioned earlier. You don't even to have to believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus happened. You don't have to believe in any real truth to the Bible. You still get be called a Christian.

However, it seems to me that this is the route a lot of non denominational churches might start going down. Already you have prosperity gospel churches, non stop dispensationalist end time churches, along with churches that believe in no literal biblical truth. There seems to believe no belief requirement outside of the basics...and those might be optional.

So can denominations provide that stability? Maybe it is a book or rules of discipline like in the Methodist or Presbyterian churches or adherence to the Nicene Creed...(I wish Methodist were a bit more creedal). Maybe the argument against it would be that both of those denominations split, along with Lutherans and Anglicans...but I would think those splits would represent that there was some fundamental theological problem that caused the churches to leave, and I figure that is a good thing.

So basically, there seems to be no way of making sure a non denominational church does not go down the Disciples of Christ path. Because without any rules of discipline or creedal truths, there is no point where breaking away makes since because you are accepting of everyone into the church. And I realize that a lot of these churches are currently theologically conservative but they may not stay that way. I figure the best argument against my fear is the Baptists since so many non denominational churches are basically Baptists who like dancing. The SBC has done a pretty good job of keeping everyone in line without really being a denomination.

Anyways, the whole point of this is not to argue that non denominational churches are bad or evil or good or wonderful. I don't think that. But just to get your thoughts on my way too long post about my thoughts.

 

[Richard.20.12]

This is probably going to be pretty long, so I apologize to anyone that does not want to read it.

I want to start off by clarifying that I do know that Disciples of Christ is an actual denomination. I was baptized in the church, but have not been associated with it for 25 years or so. But I have been reading more about the Restoration and Stone Campbell Movement which came along pretty much with the "2nd Great Awakening". A few things stuck me as odd about the movement (to be fair I have not done a deep dive into the literature yet..so please correct anything you think I am getting wrong). The first is that it gave birth to some of the more fringe Christian groups. Around this time you have the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon churches. They do have the basic belief that Jesus is the son of God, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead 3 days later, and through faith in him we have eternal life. They are also non trinitarian and believe in additional revelation which I'd say causes a lot of problems.

But the whole idea of the Disciples of Christ was that it boiled everything down in Christianity to a certain few points which I referenced earlier. I wont talk about the Church of Christ split right now, but I think the idea that the one true Church is just a community a believers... is a really nice idea.

So to bring this back into the idea of Non-Denominational..which is really the point in this part of the forum. The Disciples of Christ has pretty much abandoned the idea of those few defining Characteristics I mentioned earlier. You don't even to have to believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus happened. You don't have to believe in any real truth to the Bible. You still get be called a Christian.

However, it seems to me that this is the route a lot of non denominational churches might start going down. Already you have prosperity gospel churches, non stop dispensationalist end time churches, along with churches that believe in no literal biblical truth. There seems to believe no belief requirement outside of the basics...and those might be optional.

So can denominations provide that stability? Maybe it is a book or rules of discipline like in the Methodist or Presbyterian churches or adherence to the Nicene Creed...(I wish Methodist were a bit more creedal). Maybe the argument against it would be that both of those denominations split, along with Lutherans and Anglicans...but I would think those splits would represent that there was some fundamental theological problem that caused the churches to leave, and I figure that is a good thing.

So basically, there seems to be no way of making sure a non denominational church does not go down the Disciples of Christ path. Because without any rules of discipline or creedal truths, there is no point where breaking away makes since because you are accepting of everyone into the church. And I realize that a lot of these churches are currently theologically conservative but they may not stay that way. I figure the best argument against my fear is the Baptists since so many non denominational churches are basically Baptists who like dancing. The SBC has done a pretty good job of keeping everyone in line without really being a denomination.

Anyways, the whole point of this is not to argue that non denominational churches are bad or evil or good or wonderful. I don't think that. But just to get your thoughts on my way too long post about my thoughts.

How about we just look to the Bible? That's what every denomination is supposedly based on. They all say they believe the Bible. The problem is their congregations spend precious little time in the Bible so they don't recognize when their leaders advise them to do things that are clearly unbiblical. The most obvious one is Catholics praying to Mary in droning, robotic, repetitive prayers and thinking a priest can forgive their transgressions. And denying their workers sexual expression through marriage. None of these bizarre occurrences has any Biblical reference. Most groups have some weird twist to them.

How do the prosperity preachers relate their way of thinking to the Bible when nobody in the NT was wealthy?

Bring it back to the Bible and you'll be on solid ground. Build on a rock, not sand. Ignore names and groups. As soon as you have a group you have rules of that group thought up by a human. Humans make mistakes. God doesn't. "Church" should be Bible Study.

 

[Sors]

How about we just look to the Bible? That's what every denomination is supposedly based on. They all say they believe the Bible. The problem is their congregations spend precious little time in the Bible so they don't recognize when their leaders advise them to do things that are clearly unbiblical. The most obvious one is Catholics praying to Mary in droning, robotic, repetitive prayers and thinking a priest can forgive their transgressions. And denying their workers sexual expression through marriage. None of these bizarre occurrences has any Biblical reference. Most groups have some weird twist to them.

How do the prosperity preachers relate their way of thinking to the Bible when nobody in the NT was wealthy?

Bring it back to the Bible and you'll be on solid ground. Build on a rock, not sand. Ignore names and groups. As soon as you have a group you have rules of that group thought up by a human. Humans make mistakes. God doesn't. "Church" should be Bible Study.

Different denominations have always looked at the Bible...and interpreted it in different ways. Heck, since the First Council of Nicaea we have had the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox split off before the great schism and break between the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. With the reformation we have the Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Anabaptists. I haven't even gotten into the Methodists, Pentecostals and everyone else. And this is all before liberal theology took over...so its not an issue of not believing some parts. Its not an issue of just reading the Bible.

So to bring it back, to my original point, DOC back in the day boiled it down the bare essentials. Something I think was pretty cool and I love that non denominational churches do. But the DOC lost its way. We have seen Methodist splits, Lutheran splits, Presbyterian splits.. etc in the last couple decades. Those splits were possible because individual churches lost confidence in their governing body.

With no governing body to hold the church accountable...or for the church to declare that the denomination is wrong.....how can non denominational churches have accountability. The preacher can say whatever he wants...biblical or not.

Anyway. Attended a lot of non denominational churches over the years. I see no problem with them. I think they are great. Just trying to get some interesting discussion going among Christians other than arguing about cultural war stuff.

​

 

[Joseph Perry]

While searching for a study, I found an article from the Reformation Bible College; Early Denials of Christ’s Deity. The Council of Nicaea in 325 declared the deity of Jesus. I believe it was Jerome that wrote the definition. It did not cure the problem. A significant decline appears to have occurred due to Constantine seeing the writing in the sky. His mother had strong faith. Constantine declared himself a Christian on his deathbed.
I consider adding verse numbers as hurting how we view the Bible. There are very few instances where a verse should be used alone. An example is John 3:1-21; I am working on the whole scripture. The outline I created has the following:
A New Life (1-15 ) and The Grace of God (16-21).
Denominations have been give and take. They are usually caused by pushing a view and ignoring some parts you consider inconvenient.

 

[HatGuy]

Even denominational churches with books of discipline (look at UMC right now) and creeds and confessions have similar problems. For example, as much as I love the LCMS (Lutheran) in principle, in practice one LCMS church could be very different from another. They have the same confession, but in reality some churches / pastors have a different theology that they practice. (I am not in the LCMS; this refers to what I see other people saying.)

Denominational structures provide no real safeguard, in my opinion, and history does prove this to be the case. What you do get is quite a bit of infighting and politics, voting and concessions and over time a gradual decline.

Non-denominational churches can get just as bad too, obviously.

What I believe holds things together is really leadership and relationships where people are genuinely accountable to each other. This seems to be the very simple way the New Testament church functioned - evidenced by Paul and Peter's letters and the way they wrote to those churches. They authority they practiced appeared to be invited and based on history and trust, not super formal structures or checking to see which way the money goes.

Things morph and change as people change and as generations change. Whatever structure there must be, it must be organic enough to fall apart when necessary and come together as something else without peoples' pensions being on the line; and without people needing to go through massive existential crises because the church denom they grew up with is now changing.

 

[RileyG]

Interesting to note the modern Disciples of Christ is fairly liberal, the Church of Christ is conservative.

 

[actionsub]

So to bring it back, to my original point, DOC back in the day boiled it down the bare essentials. Something I think was pretty cool and I love that non denominational churches do. But the DOC lost its way. We have seen Methodist splits, Lutheran splits, Presbyterian splits.. etc in the last couple decades. Those splits were possible because individual churches lost confidence in their governing body.

Er...the unity movement that formed the DOC ended up splitting two or three times.
The group now known as Churches of Christ declared themselves separate due to a strict literalism from which they concluded that since there was no mention of musical instruments in the epistles, that God therefore mandated acapella singing in worship. This group had another internal split over an extreme version of discipleship, leading to the International Churches of Christ.
Another splinter group, called simply Christian Churches, has a similar theology to Church of Christ but they took the NT silence on musical instruments to mean that God had no opinion one way or another on the subject, so instruments were OK.

 

[DragonFox91]

It's a problem across the board no matter their affiliation. Decline. & at churches that are doing it 'right', you know there's people in the congregation itching to change it. It scares me too. Pray for the Church.

 

[Sors]

Even denominational churches with books of discipline (look at UMC right now) and creeds and confessions have similar problems. For example, as much as I love the LCMS (Lutheran) in principle, in practice one LCMS church could be very different from another. They have the same confession, but in reality some churches / pastors have a different theology that they practice. (I am not in the LCMS; this refers to what I see other people saying.)

Denominational structures provide no real safeguard, in my opinion, and history does prove this to be the case. What you do get is quite a bit of infighting and politics, voting and concessions and over time a gradual decline.

Non-denominational churches can get just as bad too, obviously.

What I believe holds things together is really leadership and relationships where people are genuinely accountable to each other. This seems to be the very simple way the New Testament church functioned - evidenced by Paul and Peter's letters and the way they wrote to those churches. They authority they practiced appeared to be invited and based on history and trust, not super formal structures or checking to see which way the money goes.

Things morph and change as people change and as generations change. Whatever structure there must be, it must be organic enough to fall apart when necessary and come together as something else without peoples' pensions being on the line; and without people needing to go through massive existential crises because the church denom they grew up with is now changing.

I really like this explanation. So I want to make it clear I am, for lack of a better term, playing a bit of devils advocate here, but I would like to continue the discussion.

You say that denominational structures provide no real safeguard. I don't see how they wouldn't. You bring up the LCMS. My child goes to an LCMS elementary school. I am methodist not lutheran. The LCMS may differ from congregation to congregation....but the knowledge that they broke off from the "main" U.S. lutheran denomination gave me confidence to know that I could enroll my son there. I may have to explain some theological differences I have when he gets older, but that is no big deal. I can make a decision that generally this is a church I am ok letting my child attend for school.

With non denominational I have seen many go down the prosperity gospel route. I have see others support pastors who have been unfaithful. I have seen others become mega churches and watched the gospel slowly turn into how much money they can bring in. Now I completely understand that this is in no way representative of all non denominational churches. It is a bit of an anecdote. At the same time I see how a denominational structure gives me more confidence that a church has not lost its way.

 

[Richard.20.12]

I really like this explanation. So I want to make it clear I am, for lack of a better term, playing a bit of devils advocate here, but I would like to continue the discussion.

You say that denominational structures provide no real safeguard. I don't see how they wouldn't. You bring up the LCMS. My child goes to an LCMS elementary school. I am methodist not lutheran. The LCMS may differ from congregation to congregation....but the knowledge that they broke off from the "main" U.S. lutheran denomination gave me confidence to know that I could enroll my son there. I may have to explain some theological differences I have when he gets older, but that is no big deal. I can make a decision that generally this is a church I am ok letting my child attend for school.

With non denominational I have seen many go down the prosperity gospel route. I have see others support pastors who have been unfaithful. I have seen others become mega churches and watched the gospel slowly turn into how much money they can bring in. Now I completely understand that this is in no way representative of all non denominational churches. It is a bit of an anecdote. At the same time I see how a denominational structure gives me more confidence that a church has not lost its way.

That's a really good point. If there's no underlying structure or guidelines there may be more of a tendency to stray. Especially if it brings in a lot of funds suddenly allowing the leader of that organization to afford things they never could before. Another weakness many fall prey to is simply admiration, popularity and reverence from the congregation where they are elevated socially. We all have our temptations. It really is a FOMO thing. (Fear of Missing Out) This has been used since the first temptation in the Garden of Eden. Satan knows our weaknesses.

 

[Sors]

That's a really good point. If there's no underlying structure or guidelines there may be more of a tendency to stray. Especially if it brings in a lot of funds suddenly allowing the leader of that organization to afford things they never could before. Another weakness many fall prey to is simply admiration, popularity and reverence from the congregation where they are elevated socially. We all have our temptations. It really is a FOMO thing. (Fear of Missing Out) This has been used since the first temptation in the Garden of Eden. Satan knows our weaknesses.

Alright, so I have thought about this comment for a bit. Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your statement in any way or missed anything and please don't let me put words in your mouth. But maybe we can agree on this. Non Denominational is the ideal with its acceptance of all those who profess faith in Christ (Trinitarian with no additional revelation). The problem is that when it strays it has fewer ways of self correcting, and a new believer (or old) may not see what is happening. A denominational church is not the ideal. It is often more liturgical and picky about membership. But the benefit is that they can turn to creeds, confessions of faith, books of discipline and dissociate when their is a major theological disagreement. And when this happens you are more likely to understand what you are getting into. The downside, I suppose is that this dissociation can take many years such as has happened in the UMC.

Really enjoying this conversation.

EDIT: I would hate putting words in your moth more than words in your mouth lol

 

[Sors]

Interesting to note the modern Disciples of Christ is fairly liberal, the Church of Christ is conservative.

This would be a really interesting discussion, that I honestly don't know enough about. How did lack of instruments in worship make two denominations so incredibly different? I am not sure the non denominational area is right place for the debate. Heck, I know I am not one to debate for either side. I know a bit about both...but darnit I would like to know more.

 

[RileyG]

This would be a really interesting discussion, that I honestly don't know enough about. How did lack of instruments in worship make two denominations so incredibly different? I am not sure the non denominational area is right place for the debate. Heck, I know I am not one to debate for either side. I know a bit about both...but darnit I would like to know more.

I know the C o C does not allow instruments, but I think Disciples do. C of C is more conservative on social issues.

 

[HatGuy]

I really like this explanation. So I want to make it clear I am, for lack of a better term, playing a bit of devils advocate here, but I would like to continue the discussion.

You say that denominational structures provide no real safeguard. I don't see how they wouldn't. You bring up the LCMS. My child goes to an LCMS elementary school. I am methodist not lutheran. The LCMS may differ from congregation to congregation....but the knowledge that they broke off from the "main" U.S. lutheran denomination gave me confidence to know that I could enroll my son there. I may have to explain some theological differences I have when he gets older, but that is no big deal. I can make a decision that generally this is a church I am ok letting my child attend for school.

With non denominational I have seen many go down the prosperity gospel route. I have see others support pastors who have been unfaithful. I have seen others become mega churches and watched the gospel slowly turn into how much money they can bring in. Now I completely understand that this is in no way representative of all non denominational churches. It is a bit of an anecdote. At the same time I see how a denominational structure gives me more confidence that a church has not lost its way.

I think you raise some excellent points here borne from experience.

Yes, there is *some* confidence that a denomination can give you in that, theoretically, if it claims to uphold doctrine x and practice y then you can assume with a clear conscience that this is what is being practiced / taught across the board, and any outlier to that practice / doctrine is out of step and will be disciplined in some manner in due time.

I suppose what you're wondering is which kind of structure seems more or less prone to corruption, and in this case you could be correct, to a degree. However, it depends how you define corruption - what you use to measure it.

I think that denom structures are prone to different types of corruption to some of your non-denom examples. Sure, you're less likely to find outright prosperity gospel vibes at a denom church. But rigid structures have their own religiosity about them that can be just as harmful as looser structures which seem to have an 'anything goes' attitude. Let's not forget that denominations have also been the tools of kings.

My observation is that church structure has frequently followed the culture it finds itself in. The Anglican church episcopal model is very much built on a British way of arranging things politically. In America, churches have a history of really operating under two very American models: One is the democratic model of congregationalism, the other is the executive model we see employed by most non-denom churches.

Congregationalism has its own weaknesses in that the pastor can't necessarily challenge his congregation on many issues without being fired. He can't really do much, at all, and so it has a tendency to stagnate and die within a generation (see the many Baptist churches that are aging and empty). Granted, like in all structures, there are healthy congregationalist churches / groups. But again, like I said before, it seems to boil down more to leadership and character than structure.

The executive model tends to give a lot of freedom to the 'senior pastor', who acts as a type of CEO with executives ("worship director", "campus pastor" etc.) and seems accountable / answerable to shareholders (often called 'elders', erroneously I think). This is a very American model adopted from business / commerce. The senior pastor in this case can challenge where appropriate, but can also build a platform for himself and manipulate the church, building it like a business. Again, it comes down to the leader.

I think the latter issues are more easily spotted in the public eye as they often come with a lot of hype and drama and strong personalities, while the former comes with less hype but an equal amount of drama. Under congregationalism, if the pastor wants to change something or has a vision for anything, he has to rally support etc. In this case, he spends a lot of his time doing politics whereas he should be pastoring and leading.

In other denom structures, there are similar issues. The UMC for me does remain a good example. Here you have a wonderful history, a well-thought through Book of Discipline, and some dynamic leaders. But somehow a minority group began to infuse culture / politics into the mix and undercut everything, resulting on what is becoming a nasty split. But is this because denominations might have an inherit political nature? I think so.

What I propose is what I've been exposed to for 25 years and it seems to work pretty well. Accountability must happen through real, invited relationship. Churches govern themselves autonomously under a plurality of elders (pastors) with a deacon team. The Bible only seems to speak of four teams within the Church, and those we see in Phil 1:1. These are:

A. Saints (all of us)
B. Overseers (pastors / elders)
C. Deacons
D. Paul and Timothy

(D) would be an external accountability (in the case of the Philippians church, it was Paul and Timothy) who carry an invited authority into speaking into the life of that church and its doctrine. (An 'apostolic' authority, if we could clear away some of the modern connotations of that term). Paul and Timothy were, themselves, in local churches. Timothy was pastoring one, and Paul seemed to be an elder at some as well (Ephesus?). This would mean that they were also in relationship / accountability to local elders, even while they had some authority into the life of other churches. Paul also seemed to be in accountability to Peter, and visa versa, given the nature of what we see in their relationship.

This accountability seemed to provide some freedom to follow your conscience but yet didn't seem to allow for whatever goes - given how we see Paul and Peter operate, or how Paul writes to Timothy. It seems very relational yet grounded in the authority of the Old Testament scriptures.

The point is that such an arrangement leans more towards genuine relationships than confessions or codes as a way of governing the church, with the Bible as the final authority. Sure, everyone says they're Bible-based, but the leadership arrangement has to allow for us to grow theologically together while always agreeing that the Bible is our final authority, not culture or extra revelation. That's for a bigger discussion.

For the average church-goer, they have to choose to trust the people that lead and not the systems, processes, histories, or emotions attached to that ("We've been Methodists for 3 generations and now you want to be a WHAT!?") Besides that, the average church-goer has to move beyond being the 'average' church 'goer' and realize they have a part to play too in passing the faith down to the next generation and keeping their local church focused on the right things. We can't pay the professionals (the 'clergy') to do the Kingdom thing and then get annoyed when they don't, We're all responsible for it.

 

[Sors]

I think you raise some excellent points here borne from experience.

Yes, there is *some* confidence that a denomination can give you in that, theoretically, if it claims to uphold doctrine x and practice y then you can assume with a clear conscience that this is what is being practiced / taught across the board, and any outlier to that practice / doctrine is out of step and will be disciplined in some manner in due time.

In other denom structures, there are similar issues. The UMC for me does remain a good example. Here you have a wonderful history, a well-thought through Book of Discipline, and some dynamic leaders. But somehow a minority group began to infuse culture / politics into the mix and undercut everything, resulting on what is becoming a nasty split. But is this because denominations might have an inherit political nature? I think so.

For the average church-goer, they have to choose to trust the people that lead and not the systems, processes, histories, or emotions attached to that ("We've been Methodists for 3 generations and now you want to be a WHAT!?") Besides that, the average church-goer has to move beyond being the 'average' church 'goer' and realize they have a part to play too in passing the faith down to the next generation and keeping their local church focused on the right things. We can't pay the professionals (the 'clergy') to do the Kingdom thing and then get annoyed when they don't, We're all responsible for it.

Your response is a wonderful read. I think it addresses many of my concerns and I think I probably agree with much of it. Because there is so much to unpack and think about, I am going to take a little bit of time before addressing all of your points.

I do however want to give a few initial thoughts on some snippets I took from your post. Also, I am relying a lot on anecdotal takes rather than more general reasoning, so I am well aware that "my experiences" do not always make for good rebuttal, but I think I am going to generally agree with your points in this specific post. Sorry about butchering the quote feature but its been a while since I posted regularly on a message board.

"any outlier to that practice / doctrine is out of step and will be disciplined in some manner in due time."

I think this is an excellent point but I want to highlight your qualifier of "in due time". I think that this creates a large issue with my argument regarding confidence that you don't go into that much. Church bureaucracy and resistance because of denominational loyalty can cause these splits to take many years. I had been waiting for a split in the UMC before finally deciding on a "permanent" congregation. It took years. I didn't have the confidence to join a UMC church until after the split...even though I liked the pastor, I knew that he or a Bishop could be replaced fairly easily. If discipline can not be maintained in a denomination without years of arguments then it really pokes holes in my explanation about confidence.

A small counter argument I might make would be that once these new denominations finally form, they are generally stronger and can last for a really long time. The big lutheran splits were in the 70s and 80s correct? And I think you can generally go to LCMS church and know what you will get.

"The UMC for me does remain a good example. Here you have a wonderful history, a well-thought through Book of Discipline, and some dynamic leaders. But somehow a minority group began to infuse culture / politics into the mix and undercut everything, resulting on what is becoming a nasty split."

I think this goes back to my previous point. This infusing of culture and politics is everywhere. You can look at non denominational churches that often feel more like a rock concert where all liturgical elements except maybe the Eucharist are ignored. And when the Eucharist is practiced you have some praise leader softly playing his guitar. There is a cultural and often political infusion that is not unique to either. So yes you are correct that denominational churches have these problems but so do non denominational churches.

"For the average church-goer, they have to choose to trust the people that lead and not the systems, processes, histories, or emotions attached to that ("We've been Methodists for 3 generations and now you want to be a WHAT!?") Besides that, the average church-goer has to move beyond being the 'average' church 'goer' and realize they have a part to play too in passing the faith down to the next generation and keeping their local church focused on the right things. "

Ok. I only want to highlight one thing about this statement at this time. I think there is a lot we could talk about but the word I want to focus on is "local". I think that is one of the biggest problems with non denoms. We move a lot in this world. I have moved maybe 15 times in my life. Finding a good new non denominational church can be far more difficult than finding good new denominational church.

Anyway, I thank you for your response and I hope to be able to provide you a more nuanced, intellectual, and biblical discussion in the future and I want to address all your points., but not tonight lol.

Take care,

 

[Sors]

I know the C o C does not allow instruments, but I think Disciples do. C of C is more conservative on social issues.

That is true, but the two denominations are now almost on completely different sides of the spectrum. Its almost as if a disagreement over instruments caused half to become Yankee fans and half to become Real Madrid fans...they are not even in the same ballpark...not even playing the same sport...anymore. Anyway... I am definitely going to start a discussion about this in another place here in the future, mainly because I don't know enough and am curious, but I don't think the non denominational area is the right place.

 

[RileyG]

That is true, but the two denominations are now almost on completely different sides of the spectrum. Its almost as if a disagreement over instruments caused half to become Yankee fans and half to become Real Madrid fans...they are not even in the same ballpark...not even playing the same sport...anymore. Anyway... I am definitely going to start a discussion about this in another place here in the future, mainly because I don't know enough and am curious, but I don't think the non denominational area is the right place.

I think Disciples of Christ gradually changed over time. C of C separated from them IIRC.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think Disciples of Christ gradually changed over time. C of C separated from them IIRC.

It has to do with a regulative principle, and it was a split that happened early in its history. It's not just about music. The DoC believes whatever is not forbidden by Scriptures is permitted in worship, the CoC believes whatever is not commanded in the Scriptures in worship is forbidden. That automatically set the DoC on a somewhat more liberal course.

In historical terms, the Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ (Restorationists) came out of Reformed Protestantism, and it still shares alot of core assumptions with that religion. For instance, the view of the sacraments is similar to early 19th century Reformed views, though DoC/CoC believe in the importance of having weekly communion.

 

[RileyG]

It has to do with a regulative principle, and it was a split that happened early in its history. It's not just about music. The DoC believes whatever is not forbidden by Scriptures is permitted in worship, the CoC believes whatever is not commanded in the Scriptures in worship is forbidden. That automatically set the DoC on a somewhat more liberal course.

In historical terms, the Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ (Restorationists) came out of Reformed Protestantism, and it still shares alot of core assumptions with that religion. For instance, the view of the sacraments is similar to early 19th century Reformed views, though DoC/CoC believe in the importance of having weekly communion.

Thanks for your wealth of knowledge! IIRC, DoC/CoC split from Presbyterianism but wanted to follow a primitive Church, not a denomination. I was aware they had weekly Communion but didn't see it as a means of grace.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks for your wealth of knowledge! IIRC, DoC/CoC split from Presbyterianism but wanted to follow a primitive Church, not a denomination. I was aware they had weekly Communion but didn't see it as a means of grace.

Our local UCC church has a close relationship in ministry with the local DoC. So I've learned more about them. The UCC and DoC have intercommunion agreements. Also, the UCC has congregations that were historically part of the Restorationist movement.