In the last couple of days, I've read some interesting things about the future of the Churches of Christ, the particular Christian tribe I associate with. Initially, it was several pieces in the Christian Chronicle, a Church of Christ monthly paper that I think does a really good job of trying to show the traditional and progressive sides of issues, including things like instrumental music (a topic that I know just flabbergasts some of my non-CofC readers). Also, several bloggers have been talking about the subject, including Mike Cope, Greg Kendall-Ball, and Scott Freeman. As a result, I've been doing some thinking on it too.
So what do I think the future holds for the Churches of Christ? Here are some questions I have.
- Are we losing our distinctiveness? Whether we like it or not, one of our distinguishing characteristics is a capella music. Outside of that, in most of our theology and most of our practice, we're not that different from a "community church." As we move away from a capella only and allowing the use of musical instruments, will that facilitate us losing our distinctiveness? And maybe the better question is is if that distinctiveness in worship worth is something worth holding on to?
- Another question that strikes me is how much our theology will change in the future? Most of the "progressive" churches have moved to a more grace oriented position, which has its own positives and negatives. That to me is a significant change from previous theology. Not that "traditional" churches don't believe in grace; it's simply that it's not grace only. It's grace, plus maintaining a faithful life. I wonder what points of theology will continue to change. I think the issue that's been coming up the pike for years is the women's issue and that may be on like instrumental music that just kind of gradually happens. I think we'll look up on day and have a woman leading the communion thoughts (as already happens in some churches) and not think anything of it.
- How will fellowship change in the future? I've long thought that "progressive" Church of Christ people have just as much ability to be close minded as "traditional" ones. It's very easy to believe that you're more advanced in theology and relationship to God than "those poor conservatives." Progressives have to be charitable in working with other churches of Christ, as well as denominations. Spiritual superiority complexes have no place in the Kingdom.
- You might have also noticed that I keep referring to "progressive" and "traditional" churches. I wonder if the split that's already taken place theologically and in practice will officially be recognized. I don't think it will for two reasons: 1) Conservatives won't move from the name because they view themselves as holding to the faith; 2) Progressives won't move from the name because they see something redeemable in it. So I think the de facto split will continue, just not be recognized as cleanly as it was in 1906.
8 comments:
I am not worried about being distinctive or losing some of it as long as we are continually moving forward in Christian maturation.
I don't believe that just throwing off some of the non-Biblical mandates is maturation in and of itself. No longer condemning instrumental worship, alcohol consumption, etc. does not equate to spiritual maturation. It can be evidence of such maturation, but it could just be trading off one set of distinctions or exclusivity for a new set.
I don't believe that "progressive" conveys more or less spiritual maturity than does "tranditional".
I don't know what will happen to the "CofC", but one thing I pray happens is a continued growth of outward focus, and the result of that focus to be evangelism through service and love rather than evanglism by proselytism.
Not sure that addressed your question very well.
Tony
In my conversations with Rubel Shelley, I was given to understand that the Churches of Christ were originally intended not to be a denomination, but rather a way for denominations to dry up and fade away. Perhaps that is exactly what has happened in much of post-Protestant Western Christianity, and so you all should embrace your success.
From my point of view, you all look the same anyway. :)
Good post, Phil. It's a highly charged emotional topic. Some people are ready to chuck the entire 'church of Christ' thing ... others want to hold on to it dearly as if it - by itself - is the entire kingdom of God in one group. This deserves much discussion.
Tony made some great points as well. I think we should be more concerned with "evangelistic" or "non evangelistic" than "instrumental" or "non instrumental". The former is one of the true keys, the latter is subterfuge to keep us from our real mission.
Blessings to you.
As the mother of two boys, the future of the church means a great deal to me. But not so much the future of the churches of Christ. In the church I attend, we've moved away from the suppposed non-denominational CoC (which was a joke to begin with, of course it was a denomination, we just didn't call it that. We called it "the church"). We have some old schoolers who tend to want to hand on to the "good ole days" but most folks like that we are leaning toward being a group of Christ followers and not followers of a specific church.
While we still have CoC on the sign out front, most other CoCs in the area have long stopped calling us that. They don't feel like we deserve to be in their group anymore. And I'm totally ok with that.
It just means more to me that my boys follow Christ, not a church name.
I agree with Thomas...we all look the same to most people anyway. For the love...let's get on with it.
And...Thomas is a complete poser/collar-wearer. I challenge him to buy me coffee. (shameless, I know.)
I don't think Churches of Christ are losing their distinctiveness. They are still very much a denomination with distinct characteristics. Sure some community churches have very similar approaches to the Bible, but most CoC's still read silence of Scripture as prohibitive (unless it's something they want to do).
I think the question is are they losing their relevance or ability to reach anyone.
Distinctiveness. I hope (and think)we are losing our distinctiveness of telling everyone else that we are the only one's going to heaven. That, and non-instrumental "music" have set us apart for most of my life (instead of love---which is what we are supposed to be known for). I know that there are more and more CofC's that have instrumental music in some phase of their activities, but I will be very surprised if it ever becomes mainstream in the "worship service" because there is nothing quite as inspirational as beautiful acappella singing as far as group worship goes. It's not so much about what's okay or what's scriptural. It's more about what is effective in inspiring believers to praise God and serve him. Dennis
Interesting questions. There definitely are congregations that are moving in the directions you've mentioned. Rather than everyone ending up at the same point, I suspect that there will be more diversity of views over time. So some will hold onto the traditional views of the women's role, and some will not. Some who hold onto that traditional view will also hold onto a cappella music, and some will not. Some will hold onto traditional church of Christ hermeneutics, and some will not. Not all who remain conservative on one topic will also remain conservative on all the other topics.
I hope we can learn to accept one another without passing judgment on disputable matters. Some things really are more important than other things.
Post a Comment