I am not of the UCC, but I am wondering if the Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ, and the United CC are similar and from the same beginning. Can anyone speak to this?
- 1 Watchman
- 1 Watchman
Difference between churches of Christ
- Thread starter 1watchman
- Start date
Supernaut
What did they aim for when they missed your heart?
- Jun 12, 2009
- 3,455
- 282
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
My knowledge of the CoC and DoC are somewhat limited. The UCC is very different in most every way form these other two. It tends to be liberal, ordaining both women and active GLBT.
It does have some conservative congregations, though when compared to other conservative denoms, they too are rather liberal.
The UCC started back in the 50's by a merging of the Congergational and the Evangelical/Reformed Churches. It has a heavy Lutheran influence.
To learn more, go to www.ucc.org
Upvote
0
Evenstar253
somewhere else
- Feb 3, 2009
- 450
- 43
- 42
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I also don't know a whole lot about DoC or CoC, but DoC is a mainline Protestant church that split with CoC a century ago. They now have an ecumenical partnership with the UCC. CoC churches are conservative/fundamentalist and thus very different from the other two despite the similar names. The CoC website actually makes it clear that it has no affiliation with the UCC.
Upvote
0
Evenstar253
somewhere else
- Feb 3, 2009
- 450
- 43
- 42
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Bob Carabbio
Old guy -
- Dec 22, 2010
- 2,271
- 568
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
"I am not of the UCC, but I am wondering if the Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ, and the United CC are similar and from the same beginning. Can anyone speak to this?"
The UCC is a "Composite Church" system made up of several formerly independent denominations that "United" into one somewhat variable denomination some years back. what you find in one will probably be related to what the church was before - it IS probably one of the MOST liberal Denominations.
The Church of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ, however are churches out of the "Restoration movement" (Stone-Campbell heritage), and "Roots-wise" are totally unrelated to the UCC.
There are three MAJOR denominational groups:
The Non-instrumental Church of Christ which are very Fundamentalistic, and can be hyper-legalistic in their insistence that salvation occurs when one is "Baptized properly". The "Hard liners" INSIST that they are NOT a "Denomination" (Even though they are), and prohibit instrumental music during the "Worship service" - although a growing percentage of churches will permit it on occasion.
There's the "INSTRUMENTAL Church of Christ" which is a more "Liberal", less legalistic group, more popular in the North, and VERY much like a normal Baptist church in many ways - except that they serve communion in EVERY service.
Then there's the Disciples of Christ who are the "Liberal Denomination" of the group, and tend to be liturgical in their service format, and DO very much resemble Methodists in their Worship - except they are NOT related to Wesleyan beliefs at all.
A fourth "Splinter group" is the Church of Christ International, or "Boston Church" which became cultish for a while - Neo-discipleship/Shepherding teaching - but has apparently worked its way out of that and is now coming back to orthodoxy.
The UCC is a "Composite Church" system made up of several formerly independent denominations that "United" into one somewhat variable denomination some years back. what you find in one will probably be related to what the church was before - it IS probably one of the MOST liberal Denominations.
The Church of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ, however are churches out of the "Restoration movement" (Stone-Campbell heritage), and "Roots-wise" are totally unrelated to the UCC.
There are three MAJOR denominational groups:
The Non-instrumental Church of Christ which are very Fundamentalistic, and can be hyper-legalistic in their insistence that salvation occurs when one is "Baptized properly". The "Hard liners" INSIST that they are NOT a "Denomination" (Even though they are), and prohibit instrumental music during the "Worship service" - although a growing percentage of churches will permit it on occasion.
There's the "INSTRUMENTAL Church of Christ" which is a more "Liberal", less legalistic group, more popular in the North, and VERY much like a normal Baptist church in many ways - except that they serve communion in EVERY service.
Then there's the Disciples of Christ who are the "Liberal Denomination" of the group, and tend to be liturgical in their service format, and DO very much resemble Methodists in their Worship - except they are NOT related to Wesleyan beliefs at all.
A fourth "Splinter group" is the Church of Christ International, or "Boston Church" which became cultish for a while - Neo-discipleship/Shepherding teaching - but has apparently worked its way out of that and is now coming back to orthodoxy.
Upvote
0
Algol Omega
Meijin Ryuu
- Dec 24, 2010
- 111
- 5
- 40
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I am a member of the Churches of Christ organization. Yes, we refuse to affiliate ourselves with the UCC, the Boston Movement, and the ICOC. The CoC, DoC, and CC, are the core groups to the American Christian Restoration movement started by Alexander Campbell, whom was inspired by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in its creation.
We're not fundamentalists as much as we are conservative on the context (we don't take everything literally or figuratively - but that everything depends on the scriptural context). Furthermore, since the Churches of Christ recognizes not all of us believe exactly the same, we have no 'official' creed to unite us except for the fact that we do believe in the Literal Resurrection, Virgin Birth, Immersive Baptism, Holy Trinity, Freewill, Acapella Song Worship (in other words, acapella is the only form of singing acceptable during worship services; any other time it doesn't matter), and the Lord's Supper (some CoC congregations are what we consider to be one-cuppers, as they all drink out of the same cup); and in terms of Eschatology, many are either Amillenialists, Preterists (I myself am a Preterist of sorts, I consider prophecy that's not Christ-centered to be a historical warning, and that nearly all Christ-centered prophecy came to pass before and/or during 70AD), or couldn't care less at all.
Upvote
0
Supernaut
What did they aim for when they missed your heart?
- Jun 12, 2009
- 3,455
- 282
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Another difference between the Coc, DoC, and the UCC may be that the UCC is definitely "non doctrinal" meaning that it requires nothing of it's adherents such as baptism or adherence to creeds.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ellwood3
Active Member
Hello:
"1 Watchman" asked a good question.
What it brings to mind is this quote: "In a religious framework, if you feel you are living up to your chosen religious standards, then you feel superior and disdainful toward those who are not following in the true path. This is true whether your religion is of a more liberal variety (in which case you will feel superior to bigots and narrow-minded people) or of a more conservative variety (in which case you will feel superior to the less moral and devout)." That's from Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God.
In other words, liberals are prone to spiritual pride (just as others are): "We're so great; we're not like those old-fashioned fools over there." And I think some of the comments reflect that kind of pride.
Christianity isn't about getting your rights, or just "loving" others. It's about a deep meaningful search into how to serve the God you love as the most important thing in your whole life. It's not just vague "loving others." It's also obedience. Jesus Christ is not only your Savior but also Lord of your life. There's devotion there. A true witness.
Bottom line: The United Church of Christ seems proud of it's committment to what it calls justice. It's a proud, "progressive" church. Beware of pride.
The United Church of Christ is into the environment. If I were into an earth-goddess system of thought like wicca (I'm not), I would feel at home in the United Church of Christ. They focus more on the environment, than on the Great Commission. They do their own thing.
And their motto, that "God is still speaking," does not mean this is a prophetic church--no, no, no.
The United Church of Christ has some similarities to Unitarianism,
which is not a Christian faith.
Also, The United Church of Christ tends to support the Arabs who survive around Israel, wanting "their" land back, rather than Israel.
The Church of Christ, from what I understand, is wholly unrelated to the United Church of Christ. A most excellent question.
Nice to meet you 1 Watchman
LATER NOTE: 1/24/14. I think it's only fair to add that at the congregational level, the people may seem devout and genuinely be seeking God. The problem is more at the denominational level, driving the agenda of the church.
"1 Watchman" asked a good question.
What it brings to mind is this quote: "In a religious framework, if you feel you are living up to your chosen religious standards, then you feel superior and disdainful toward those who are not following in the true path. This is true whether your religion is of a more liberal variety (in which case you will feel superior to bigots and narrow-minded people) or of a more conservative variety (in which case you will feel superior to the less moral and devout)." That's from Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God.
In other words, liberals are prone to spiritual pride (just as others are): "We're so great; we're not like those old-fashioned fools over there." And I think some of the comments reflect that kind of pride.
Christianity isn't about getting your rights, or just "loving" others. It's about a deep meaningful search into how to serve the God you love as the most important thing in your whole life. It's not just vague "loving others." It's also obedience. Jesus Christ is not only your Savior but also Lord of your life. There's devotion there. A true witness.
Bottom line: The United Church of Christ seems proud of it's committment to what it calls justice. It's a proud, "progressive" church. Beware of pride.
The United Church of Christ is into the environment. If I were into an earth-goddess system of thought like wicca (I'm not), I would feel at home in the United Church of Christ. They focus more on the environment, than on the Great Commission. They do their own thing.
And their motto, that "God is still speaking," does not mean this is a prophetic church--no, no, no.
The United Church of Christ has some similarities to Unitarianism,
which is not a Christian faith.
Also, The United Church of Christ tends to support the Arabs who survive around Israel, wanting "their" land back, rather than Israel.
The Church of Christ, from what I understand, is wholly unrelated to the United Church of Christ. A most excellent question.
Nice to meet you 1 Watchman
LATER NOTE: 1/24/14. I think it's only fair to add that at the congregational level, the people may seem devout and genuinely be seeking God. The problem is more at the denominational level, driving the agenda of the church.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Interesting thoughts! So, it appears the generic ref. to "churches of Christ" is used by various denominations. The scriptural fact though, is that the universal Church is always the Church of God in the Bible (not Church of Christ), and properly the Lord Jesus is "Head" over the Church ("body of Christ) as the Son of God.
Thanks for the input here.
Thanks for the input here.
Upvote
0
Shattered-Reflections
Saved by Grace
Doing a little history reading might give some clarity on facts. Look up "Churches of Christ" in Wikipedia or a search engine. Most everything you want to know is there about differences in beliefs, practices, etc.
I don't know anything about the UCC, but I grew up in the CoC. Algol Omega has a pretty good view on CoC. I would also note, what the CoC started off as, is different than what is was mid 20th century. Which is also different than what it is today.
The CoC started off as a movement to unite all churches by focusing on one commonality we all have: The Bible and what we know historically about the 1st century church. To my knowledge, even though people still had theological differences they were still able to respect and love one another as part of one church under God. However after the founders had passed away the theological differences overcame the desire for church unity and thus there have been splits ever since (Creating the CoC, CoD, and the Christian Church).
CoC isn't classified as a domination because each congregation chooses how to govern itself (verses the domination governing the churches). That doesn't mean though that preachers and churches don't communicate with others CoC churches or other denominations and their pastors. So often there will be similar theology and trends as they share their findings, studies, and sermons. However each church can ignore or flat out refuse to agree with what other churches might be sharing or doing. Like how Britain and America have similarities because of their history. They may talk, agree, and use similar politics and government, but each country isn't require to agree or follow each other.
I've been to many CoC across the US and outside the US and they can differ significantly, to the point I wouldn't want to attend certain congregations. Also what I've been told by others who were around in the 40's-70's was a VERY different CoC than what I know today. There was little talk of the Holy Spirit, often there were traditional creeds, and little room for questioning. I wouldn't have survived those churches and my grandfather and others had severe issues with the old CoC. There are still CoC that are ultra conservative, traditionalist, or don't take kindly to questioning the status quo. They are mostly in the Bible belt, but I would say most CoC are not like that.
In general though, CoC have A Capella music, communion every Sunday, worship services, group Bible studies, community works & service, Missions, etc. For general beliefs, look it up.
In general CoC has a strong sense of the importance of study and biblical knowledge, I consider this a strong point. However this can make some members or whole churches place too much value in "theological correctness" -OVER- loving one another and giving allowance because we are under a law of love. There's nothing wrong with having convictions about truth, but how you use that knowledge and how you act matters. "Theological correctness" combined with spiritual immaturity and a lack of in-depth study (iow, if you really know the Bible holistically and obeyed it you wouldn't act prideful or legalistic) has caused some of the legalistic and traditionalism attitudes others seen in the church. Though I would point out, every church has this issue or at least members who have this issue.
I might have presented the CoC in poor lighting, but I think it's an honest lighting. I would like to state that the CoC origins, in my opinion, is very honorable, true, and beautiful. I believe many CoC have gotten too tied up in insignificant differences in word and law to find security in their own salvation and thus lost sight of the beautiful holistic truth of Christ.
I don't know anything about the UCC, but I grew up in the CoC. Algol Omega has a pretty good view on CoC. I would also note, what the CoC started off as, is different than what is was mid 20th century. Which is also different than what it is today.
The CoC started off as a movement to unite all churches by focusing on one commonality we all have: The Bible and what we know historically about the 1st century church. To my knowledge, even though people still had theological differences they were still able to respect and love one another as part of one church under God. However after the founders had passed away the theological differences overcame the desire for church unity and thus there have been splits ever since (Creating the CoC, CoD, and the Christian Church).
CoC isn't classified as a domination because each congregation chooses how to govern itself (verses the domination governing the churches). That doesn't mean though that preachers and churches don't communicate with others CoC churches or other denominations and their pastors. So often there will be similar theology and trends as they share their findings, studies, and sermons. However each church can ignore or flat out refuse to agree with what other churches might be sharing or doing. Like how Britain and America have similarities because of their history. They may talk, agree, and use similar politics and government, but each country isn't require to agree or follow each other.
I've been to many CoC across the US and outside the US and they can differ significantly, to the point I wouldn't want to attend certain congregations. Also what I've been told by others who were around in the 40's-70's was a VERY different CoC than what I know today. There was little talk of the Holy Spirit, often there were traditional creeds, and little room for questioning. I wouldn't have survived those churches and my grandfather and others had severe issues with the old CoC. There are still CoC that are ultra conservative, traditionalist, or don't take kindly to questioning the status quo. They are mostly in the Bible belt, but I would say most CoC are not like that.
In general though, CoC have A Capella music, communion every Sunday, worship services, group Bible studies, community works & service, Missions, etc. For general beliefs, look it up.
In general CoC has a strong sense of the importance of study and biblical knowledge, I consider this a strong point. However this can make some members or whole churches place too much value in "theological correctness" -OVER- loving one another and giving allowance because we are under a law of love. There's nothing wrong with having convictions about truth, but how you use that knowledge and how you act matters. "Theological correctness" combined with spiritual immaturity and a lack of in-depth study (iow, if you really know the Bible holistically and obeyed it you wouldn't act prideful or legalistic) has caused some of the legalistic and traditionalism attitudes others seen in the church. Though I would point out, every church has this issue or at least members who have this issue.
I might have presented the CoC in poor lighting, but I think it's an honest lighting. I would like to state that the CoC origins, in my opinion, is very honorable, true, and beautiful. I believe many CoC have gotten too tied up in insignificant differences in word and law to find security in their own salvation and thus lost sight of the beautiful holistic truth of Christ.
Upvote
0
D
Digout
Guest
Good info. Thanks. Does CoC has relevant verses in the Bible that support non-use of instruments and assuming that children are born sinless?
Upvote
0
Bob Carabbio
Old guy -
- Dec 22, 2010
- 2,271
- 568
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
"Does CoC has relevant verses in the Bible that support non-use of instruments"
NO
They base their belief on the ABSENCE of any NEW Testament mention of instrumental music. It's nothing more than an "Argument from silence".
NO
They base their belief on the ABSENCE of any NEW Testament mention of instrumental music. It's nothing more than an "Argument from silence".
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Shattered-Reflections
Saved by Grace
You're welcome
I'll try to answer your questions, but bare in mind there isn't exactly a hard copy "list of verses" the CoC pull out to answer questions nor are these topics harped on continually in the churches I've attended. Thus I'm having to refresh my memory and do some research myself to answer this.--
As far as non-instruments are concerned, the most commonly quoted scripture I have heard from CoC members is, "make a joyful noise" which is found throughout the Pslams. ("joyful noise" is the KJV translation).
Which doesn't tell much frankly, but it is pointing out the call to use our voice to praise God. Music was used in the OT in worship by the Jews (example: David and many Psalmist with named instruments). The argument for "a capella" worship from a purely Biblical standpoint -- is in the NT where there is mention of "singing" or "song" there is no mention of music or instruments.
some examples:
That's just two passage, you can either use biblegate.com and search "singing", "sung", song" etc. There's also a nice list here: What Does the Bible Say About Singing?.
It can only be assumed there were instruments with the singing. Just looking at passages it's not clear that there were instruments, it can only be clear there was singing. So from a purely scriptural stand point, the CoC would go with what they know for sure instead what they cannot know. As the original intent of the CoC was to create a common stance on scripture.
You asked for scripture so that's what I gave, but there's also historical relevance too. I haven't studied up on it before, since I personally have no qualms with instruments and don't see it as "unacceptable" worship (though I enjoy a capella), but here's an excerpt from a website:
...bare in mind not all CoC are against instrumental worship, but these are the reason why many CoC are for and use a capella whorship
--
Now about, "assuming that children are born sinless" ...
Honestly my first thought is, "what do you mean?"
Now, I'm sure you're referring to the concept of "original sin" but what's implied by "born sinless" can be different. While the average CoC will likley beieve an infant is without sin. The topic itself is very in-depth and can be complicated because we're dealing with the genesis curse, creation, mortality, human nature, sinful nature, generational consequences, inherited sin/punishment, accountability, judgment, physical death, spiritual death, forgiveness, etc. AND how are those things connected or separated. So to me at least, "born sinless" is just too simple a term to define what's going on. I would provide different scripture depending if you're talking about, "is a child punished for the sin of their parents" than, "why do infants die" or, "do infants/children belong in heaven".
Because this is such an extensive topic there are many facets to the topic. Because there are many facets, there are pratial or different perspectives in the CoC even if they generally agree an infant is without sin. To ask to provide scripture as to why someone believes,"children are sinless" is to ask to provide ALL scripture for ALL the reasons someone might believe children are without sin... and there is a lot. Thus I have a delima because I don't have an exhuastive list of scripture on the topic nor do I desire to spend the hours compling this list. I've been trying to find a comprehensive and exhaustive article on the subject, but I find most are not holistic enough and lacking certain details.
So I would suggest, if you think there is no scriptural support for "childern born sinless", run some searches yourself and study yourself
Upvote
0
G
godenver1
Guest
To my knowledge, it's my understanding the CoC view baptism as necessary to salvation- what is the view of the UCC?
I think someone earlier mentioned the UCC has Lutheran influence, is the UCC liturgical in worship? How would it differ from a regular Baptist church?
I think someone earlier mentioned the UCC has Lutheran influence, is the UCC liturgical in worship? How would it differ from a regular Baptist church?
Upvote
0
Shattered-Reflections
Saved by Grace
Depends on who you talk to
Nearly all CoC will say it's important because of all the scriptural commands and evidence for it. If you talk with a legalistic CoC they will say baptism is necessary in order to be saved. They either will say you aren't saved or they are unsure if you're saved if you aren't baptized. A more grace-centered CoC will say it's important but not required for salvation; that baptism is an expression of faith and commitment that uplifts and benefits everyone. They won't believe you're not saved, but will encourage baptism. Not out of fear for your soul, but because they see it as a good thing.
I can't comment on UCC views though
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
heirmiles
Rookie
- Apr 14, 2012
- 475
- 28
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I had the joy of receiving Christ and being baptized through the ministry of a very loving and devout Church of Christ (instrumental) congregation in Australia as a Teen. When our family moved back to Canada, I eventually found a wonderful congregation of Regular Baptists where we lived. And found that there were such great similarities that after highschool I studied at a Regular Baptist Bible College, and have ended up as a Reformed congregationalist in Theology and church polity. Reformed in terms of being Calvinistic and congregationalist in terms of emphasis on the independent nature of each local church.
Personally, I believe that salvation is evidenced by faith, while baptism is the/an active response to salvation in Christ. Regular Baptists tend to prefer being baptized prior to receiving the Lord's Supper, yet also recognize that the personal nature of partaking in communion is between the individual and Christ. Way back when, many RB congregations would actually police the Lord's table, denying participation by anyone who had not been baptized.
There were some aspects to the North American Churches of Christ that were significantly different from the Australian Churches of Christ, particulary the aspect of one's relationship to the Holy Spirit upon Baptism. In Australia baptism signified the filling of the Holy Spirit in a person's life, while many in North American Churches of Christ tend toward actual regeneration through Baptism. Both believe that since one truly believes in order to be baptized, that baptism is the assurance of salvation.
For RB's while baptism does not save a person, it is the appropriate outward response to being saved and to living in communion with Christ.
Upvote
0
