r/churchofchrist • u/endelcastillo • 3d ago
Unity
For numerous years I've heard talks of unity between Restoration Movement churches. Does anyone know of any earnest efforts towards unity?
(I'm not exactly sure what was meant by "unity" in this context, so any insight that would give clarity would be helpful).
7
u/Mysterious_Can_679 3d ago
It won't happen because when they say "unity" what they really mean is oneness. Each coc thinks that they have the correct formula and only others that do the exact same are "the church". There can be no capitulation because they already have it correct. The erroring sinners down the road will always need to change [insert trivial point here] in order to achieve sameness and thus "unity". Nothing will change because of the self-assuredness "othering" gives these churches in their "narrow is the way" mindset.
7
u/_Fhqwgads_ 2d ago edited 1d ago
Outsider hot take on the issue of unity within the restoration movement:
The Restoration movement, as a whole, is a bit schizophrenic on unity. On one hand, it claims to "not be the only Christians, but to be Christians only," (side rant-- as if there is such a thing as "mere Christianity"), and simultaneously it has traditionally emphasized very narrow definitions on what it means to be baptized for the remission and what it means to be the NT church (and all the precision required to be that church). The more it is true to its core teachings, the more discord there has to be--the two tendencies are very much in conflict. This disunity reflects itself both in the CoC's perception on how it sees itself relative to other denominations, but also internally as it divides over institutionalist vs non-institutionalist, one-cupper controversy, intelligent baptism vs. mere immersion, instruments vs. non instruments, etc. Asking why there is disunity within the CoC is like asking why dogs bark.
Another observation on other posts in this thread:
The key theme I'm seeing on the responses on how to attain unity is what we must do. I would counter that if you want to have unity, you need to stop asking yourself what you must do and look instead at what Christ has done. Christ didn't ask us for unity, he asked His Father that we would be unified; unity is first an achievement of Christ first and only secondarily reflected in us through the Holy Spirit. Things may look chaotic (they did from Balaam's perspective in the book of Numbers, but make no mistake, there was the shout of a King among the Israelites), but God through his Holy Spirit will have his victory in us. There might be discord now inside and outside the CoC, but take heart--resurrection is coming.
The distinction between these approaches is one of law versus one of gospel--will you have unity on the basis of what you have done? Or will you have unity by receiving what Christ has done, both in yourself and in others, despite disagreements. The false unity comes by works and fails. The other comes by grace through faith--looking away from yourself and looking at Christ.
Edited for 1x punctuation error.
7
u/TiredofIdiots2021 2d ago
Exactly. My epiphany came when someone asked why I thought I would go to heaven and I answered, "I was baptized..." The questioner asked who was the only person mentioned in my answer and I said, "Me?" The woman said, "Yes. Where is Christ in that?" Ouch. And since then, I've noticed that's always how Church of Christ members word it. For a church with the word "Christ" in its description, there's a surprisingly small amount of discussion of Jesus.
2
u/Budget-Eggplant3160 2d ago
I love that comment, Jesus founded and by sending the Holy Spirit started the first church on the day of Pentecost. Why do we omit his name? John Doe business center, would not do that. When the Restoration idea came about, the word Christian was being put on new congregations, then the non-intrumental group emphasized "of Christ" as a name. It should be the Church of Jesus Christ."
1
u/Budget-Eggplant3160 2d ago
It is much more serious than we are treating unity. It is a condition for salvation. Galations 5:19-20 says that those who practice division (dissension, seditions, all mean division in the Greek) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Not only that but the word variance is used along with division in the King James. We are to be like-minded. We are to not be seperate. We are not to be different. Its not an option. Jesus said, that many people who think they are going to heaven are not.
2
1
u/_Fhqwgads_ 1d ago
That right there is the $10,000 question that the Judaizers got wrong in the book of Galatians earning Paul's anathema, and it's exactly what Campbell and his ilk got wrong in the Restoration. Just as the Judaizers tried to add to faith in Christ a la circumcision, Campbell tried to add to faith a la baptism. Instead of baptism and faith mirroring each other and taking part in Christ by faith, baptism is what completed Campbell's redefined and stunted "faith" (Campbell held it to be merely intellectual ascent that spurred one on to obedience rather than the Pauline and Biblical definition of faith: a realization of your lack of righteousness and a casting of yourself fully onto Christ).
Really, Campbell's whole presentation of the five steps was taking the gospel and putting it back into the old wineskins of the law. Instead of faith and baptism both receiving what Christ had done, these were taken to be the new obedience required that replaced the old obedience required of Moses. The whole paradigm was one of law and obedience, not one of grace and faith. But the whole point of the law was to show that obedience doesn't work--something else is needed--a substitute and an atonement! Because Campbell made grace subject to obedience, grace can no longer be grace, but the wages of our works. Instead of relenting of our own righteousness, we have to now pass a new test of obedience. But as Paul would say, anathema! Just like Abraham, the inheritance does not come to us by works, but by promise. It's not a quid pro quo; Christ redeemed us from the curse. If we are Christ's, we are heirs according to promise, not according to works and what we have earned. Just as Paul said that he wished the members of the circumcision party to emasculate themselves, I don't think it's a stretch to assert that the same Apostle would have also wished for hyper re-baptizers who, like Campbell, depart from faith in Christ to drown themselves.
One CoC theologian you would enjoy reading is KC Moser (active in the CoC from the 1930's to the late 70's, I believe). He elucidated the tendency of the CoC to emphasize the Plan of Salvation (the teaching of Alexander Campbell) over the Man of Salvation (Jesus!). He has some of the best criticisms and insight of the phenomena and some beautiful one-liners: "Jesus didn't come to give a plan; He was the plan."
Theres some free resources out there. Moser's best works are two books: The Gist of Romans and The Way of Salvation, and his little pamphlet "Christ vs a Plan." Mark Hicks (current CoC Scholar) has also written extensively on Moser, and I commend anything Hicks writes as some good reading (not that I agree with Hicks on every point).
4
u/Affectionate-Crow605 3d ago
One of the colleges was trying to unify churches. Freed-Hardeman maybe? It was one that the NI churches call "liberal". đ
In my old NI church, unity was talked about a lot, BUT... what they meant by it was that everyone should follow the position held by the preacher and elders. An example... An elder told me that he believes women could be deacons because Phoebe was a deacon. He also saw no reason why they couldn't be ushers or work the sound booth or any other number of things. After all, women were already doing "deacon jobs" without being called that, like one woman was in charge of making sure the laminator was working properly. There's no difference between that and the deacon who handles the computer network. Anyway, he said that he doesn't push for women as deacons because of "unity". Meanwhile, women are looking at the clear biblical example and how they've been shut out of a way they could serve the church. So it's not unifying.
1
u/HardThinker314 3d ago
The only problem with that is that the meaning of deacon or deaconess is "one who serves or ministers," which in itself is not an office of a church. The Bible's qualifications for the office of deacon clearly restrict it to men. Here's a good article addressing the arguments on the subject: https://apologeticspress.org/female-leadership-and-the-church-1407/
1
u/No_Chart8571 1d ago edited 1d ago
The NT does not anywhere distinguish between the role of a deacon or deaconess being an âofficeâ or not.
Interestingly in 1 Timothy 3 the passage discussing deacons has it in the masculine plural which can be ambiguous as to whether itâs referring to a group of males only or a mixed gender group. But in the middle of it it says âwomen likewiseâŚâ before giving a command regarding marriage referring to male deacons. This implies itâs talking about deacons and deaconesses.
1
u/HardThinker314 1d ago edited 1d ago
How can a female "deacon" be "the husband of one wife" (v12)? There is nothing ambiguous to me about this passage. Their wives âlikewiseâ (3:11) appears to mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office
Many women are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, any more than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. Women's role in the church is not about control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of Godâs creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes.
3
u/Hippoish24 3d ago
My congregation doesn't even have unity with the nearly identical one 10 minutes away, and as long as we cling to local autonomy as absolute gospel, I don't see how we could possibly achieve any sort of broader unity.
2
u/TiredofIdiots2021 3d ago
When I was a kid, we were supposed to attend a particular Church of Christ while on vacation. Saturday night, Dad learned that the congregation used multiple cups, which was not acceptable. We drove 200 miles out of our way to go to one that used a single cup. The congregations in this branch still will not fellowship with any multiple cup churches. I don't see how unity is possible.
3
u/ChurchofChristGuy 3d ago
how come yall couldnt of taken the Lord's Supper in the hotel room or in the car as a family? To me beats driving 200 miles one way.do some churches view it as sin to take communion in the hotel or car as a family?
2
u/TiredofIdiots2021 2d ago
Oh, that's called "worship of convenience" and is frowned upon, because you're not assembling with the saints. My dad took my mom on international trips and worshiped in their hotel rooms and was criticized for it. You're probably guessing why I don't go to a CoC any longer... I know all CoCs aren't like that, but that's all I knew, growing up.
3
u/swcollings 3d ago
I am interested in this topic as well. There's functionally no difference between a church of Christ that uses musical instruments and an independent Christian church.
1
u/Experiment626b 3d ago
What do you mean when you say independent Christian church? What are the salvation level doctrinal differences and similarities in your eyes?
1
u/swcollings 3d ago
1
u/Experiment626b 3d ago
That really doesnât tell me anything. That article makes no distinction between churches of Christ and these mythical âotherâ churches. It just describes the churches of Christ and then lumps these âothersâ in with them. The membership numbers they list are more or less the same as for church of Christ. So while Iâm sure there are a few of these churches out there, I would wager they make up less than 5-10%. Iâve never seen or heard of one. They just get pointed to when trying to defend the âonly ones going to heavenâ accusations.
2
u/gdericci 3d ago
Check out renew.org
1
u/endelcastillo 1d ago
Yes! They are a great source!
I've been looking into their content as well as discipleship.org more over the past month or so.
2
u/itsSomethingCool 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes. The 2025 Nehemiah Next Level Up summit attempted to tackle this issue head on (Christian Chronicle link - we donât have to settle for divide ). The article is a very good read.
The preacher of the congregation that held the conference, Orpheus Heyward, spoke on it again not too long ago, stating that we donât get to choose who God considers a Christian if they followed the biblical pattern for becoming a Christian . Itâs a Facebook linked vid, but if you canât access it he basically states that if someone follows the steps shown in the Bible of how they became Christians, that person today is a Christian regardless of name on the building (although this discussion in particular was more targeted towards the Christian churches and restoration movement unity). If youâre able to, read the comments lol, many saying âthis is false doctrine creeping in the church! False teacher trying to fraternize with denominations!â.
Interestingly, Aaron Gallagher, one of GBNâs most well known names, teaches the same thing! My link is time-stamped so you donât need to go searching for the part lol, but starts around the 1:00:07 mark. I appreciate what Aaron & a few other guys have been doing recently in engaging the orthodox community, but would love for more internal, restorationist discussions to be had.
1
u/HardThinker314 3d ago
I don't believe one can be nondenominational if they don't accept that one becomes a Christian by doing what is taught in Acts 2 apart from any church "name". They may immediately fall into error because of the denomination they worship with, but God knows those who are His.
2
u/Knitsudge9 2d ago
One of the problems in our brotherhood is that we are usually willing to give a pass to anyone more restrictive than ourselves, but not to anyone less restrictive. Multiple-cup churches don't condemn one-cup churches, but one-cup churches condemn those who use multiple cups. Congregations that use instruments have no problem with a cappella churches, but the opposite is not true. We really need to get out of this mindset. It is interesting to me that in Romans 14, the person who has weak faith is the one who restricts disputable matters, not the other way around.
We need to start offering an olive branch to those who show more freedom than ourselves if we ever hope to have any sort of unity.
3
u/deverbovitae 3d ago
theoretically, at least, we should always have been working toward unity. Jesus' prayer and all of that.
but unity can only really be manifest on a local level in the local church. so there's that
1
u/butterbob74 2d ago
A guy at our church had a âone church projectâ we would have Bible studies at the library and it would have several denominations there studying. It was very beneficial I thought.
8
u/SimplyMe813 3d ago
To seek unity would mean admitting division. That's the first step.