Duck Dynasty and the Church of Christ

Much of America has become enthralled with the TV series Duck Dynasty.  I haven't seen an episode yet, but I do go to Wal-Mart from time to time, and it's impossible to be there without seeing one of the cast on a T-shirt, poster or advertisement, spouting off some sort of home-spun countryfied witticism.  Many of my Facebook friends appear to greatly enjoy the show.

But like I said, I've never seen it, so I don't intend to criticize or judge the show or its cast in any way.  I'm sure the show is fine entertainment and the cast are good people.  I've hobnobbed with reality TV folk before, and most of them are decent people, if not just a little narcissistic and perhaps insane.  (I'm looking at you, Johnny Fairplay.)  So I give the Duck Dynasty folks every benefit of a doubt.

I'm also constantly reminded of the show because it keeps showing up in Church of Christ-related literature.  The Christian Chronicle almost never releases an issue without featuring one of the Robertsons in an article.  Just recently, I was given an issue of Freed-Hardeman University's Seasons magazine featuring this guy:

His beard just killed three ducks all by itself.

Apparently he was a guest speaker at dear ol' FHU, despite the fact that the university's student handbook says this:

• Men’s hair should not extend past the bottom of the collar on the back of a standard dress shirt.

There are fines and punishments for students who violate these dress codes and cause themselves to look like the people that Freed-Hardeman invites to speak.  I'll leave you to ponder that double standard for just a moment.

Thought about it just a little too long...

Ever since Duck Dynasty became popular, the cast have been making regular appearances at Church of Christ events.  They've been invited to speak in chapel at Harding University. They've been invited to Churches of Christ everywhere.

And it makes no sense, because any other time some man came in looking like that, Church of Christ members would never stand for it.

Trust me.  I know what I'm talking about here.

All other things being equal, most Churches of Christ would never think about inviting anyone that looks like Phil Robertson to stand in their pulpits and preach.  Certainly, none of their esteemed universities would ever let someone so unkempt give a keynote address on campus.  If he showed up at their church meetings and decided, for whatever reason, to keep coming, the members would have the elders take him aside, discuss 1 Corinthians 11, and tell him he better go get his hair cut or he would not so much as be allowed to count the offering, much less lead a prayer.  (They wouldn't, however, instruct those elders' wives to take off their jewelry or unbraid their hair--or heaven knows, to stop cutting their hair short!)  If he ever asked to preach, they wouldn't even think of it.  You'd more likely see a goat riding a unicycle up to the pulpit than see some not-famous, long-haired, bearded, bandanna-adorned, flannel-clad hillbilly like this being invited to hold a gospel meeting.

But put some fame on a person, and people can't wait to bring him down front and lap up every word he says from the podium.

And that's the thing.  Churches of Christ are just so anxious to follow fame that they throw all their own rules aside and try to show these famous TV stars the front seat.  

WE LOVE YOUR TV SHOW!  WILL YOU COME VALIDATE OUR RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT?

Like I said, I have nothing against the Robertson family.  I know nothing about them.  And to be fair, some Churches of Christ don't discriminate against us long-haired men.  My dad's congregation doesn't, and apparently neither does the one where the Robertsons attend.  It's just the inconsistency across the spectrum of the Church of Christ as a whole that is maddening.

And now, hilariously enough, there's starting to be a backlash against Duck Dynasty within the Church of Christ.

The following comes from Cindy Colley's blog.  If you aren't familiar with her work and writings, then consider yourself blessed. 

The show doesn’t reflect so honorably on the church. While I am thankful that I did not hear expletives, I did hear the word “crap” almost immediately when I began to watch. Then it wasn’t long before I heard “dang” and a southern drawn out version of golly and “Let’s get the heck outta here.”  Perhaps I’m too sensitive. Perhaps I am a prude. But I still hope that my  children and grandchildren find crude words as well as euphemisms like those to be distasteful and unbecoming (Col. 4:6). Second, I watched a clip of Phil Robertson preaching in which he clearly stated “I don’t care if you have a glass of wine or a beer. The Lord don’t either.”  I believe him to be mistaken about that. I believe God’s people in our society have no business drinking recreationally, at all.  I’m worried, though, that when we make a hero of this man, as we have done in many of our Christian schools and other venues, we endorse this message that drinking is okay. Then there’s episode of Duck Dynasty in which the Robertson family decided to branch into the winery business. They drank wine in that episode and they hosted a wine-tasting event. This is disheartening to me; not because I think those who watch such a scenario are necessarily sinning in watching, but because I hear Christians all around me celebrating the fact that this family is such a great example of faith in Hollywood. I just do not think such an episode represents our faith so pristinely. In fact, if my family were so publicly involved in the filming of an attempt at owning and running a winery, I believe my elders would come talk to us about the reproach we had brought on  the body. I’m glad that they would. (I believe the episode about the homecoming dance is a similarly poor representation of Christianity, as well. This episode contains a number of examples of immodest dress and includes a father apologizing to his daughter for his opposition to the immodesty.) Perhaps the most disturbing thing I have seen about the influence of the Dynasty had to do with the venue at which I saw Phil Robertson preaching. It was a “Bible Church” in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. It was in the year 2010. I was glad that he got the chance to tell the people there what to do to be saved. It made me happy that he got the chance to say those things in that venue. I believe we should always say the truth about salvation wherever we are given the chance; perhaps especially in a church like this one which was obviously not a faithful body of believers in any sense of the word.  But, after Mr. Robertson finished speaking, people with spiritual needs were invited to come and talk with the “pastor” there or with some of the leaders of that church about the Lord and about salvation. The “pastor” even promised that he would buy lunch for anyone who wanted to talk about the Lord. Phil Robertson stated his message and then put those who heard it in the hands of unsaved people to finish their teaching and encourage them to be part of a church that is failing to practice New Testament Christianity. This is the part of my morning that troubles me most. The New Testament is just so replete with warnings about false teachers.

Well, isn't that special?

Oh, no!  They drink an occasionally glass of wine?  (Psalm 104:15, Matthew 11:19, Genesis 27:28, Luke 7:4, Matthew 9:17, etc.)  String them up.

They say "heck, golly and darn"??  (Never mind that Cindy repeated the words in her blog.)  Well, shucks!  Oops.

You mean Phil went to one of them there evil denominations and didn't use his invitation to browbeat them and slam his Bible up and down on their heads?  Disfellowship this man, right now!  How dare he be kind to them and treat them as fellow believers who have honestly searched the word!

And Cindy's acolytes were very quick to pat her on the back and tell her what a good soldier for Christ she is:

We just turn the TV OFF.  Don't have to watch it. We watch sermons online with video or just audio in an evening.

I agree with Cindy Colley. I could not say it better. I have only seen the program two or three times. It is degrading to the Lord church. Try watching GBN! (Gospel Broadcasting Network, a Church of Christ run TV network)

Sigh.

Well, at least it's good to see the Pharisees are still alive and well, I guess...

You know what?  I think I may now actually be motivated to watch an episode...

Can Two People Be Right? A Look at Mary and Martha

One of the biggest problem in the religious world today is "black and white" thinking.

We seem to think that things can only be one way or the other.  If someone is right, then anyone who disagrees with him in any way must be wrong.  It seems like that should be true, doesn't it?  Right and wrong should be a zero sum game, shouldn't it?  If what I have is the truth, then it stands to reason that your contradiction of my truth should be falsehood.  Perhaps not only falsehood, but maybe even blatant dishonesty and lies.

And then, of course, I get to jump up and down on your falsehood, condemn you as an apostate false teacher, and gleefully watch as the earth opens up and swallows you immediately down into the pits of Hell.

HA!  SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CLAP YOUR HANDS DURING VBS??!!!

But is it always true that two people, who do two different things, can't be right at the same time?  

Consider this passage of scripture:

"As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, 'Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!'

'Martha, Martha,' the Lord answered, 'you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one.  Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.'" Luke 10:38-42

Here we have two women.  They are sisters, and they are receiving Jesus into their home.  One is slaving away in the kitchen, trying to keep the kishke and schnitzel from burning, and flitting around the house trying to clean up.  Nobody wants the house to be a mess when the Messiah comes by, right?  Both Mary and Martha are excited that he's coming, and they both anticipate having a good time and enjoying his company and learning from him.

But then that blasted Mary goes completely ADHD and totally up and takes off, leaving all the work to her already-burdened sister Martha.  No doubt, Martha had already made an intricate plan in her mind and was counting on Mary to pull her part of the load.  But no!  Mary had completely flaked off in the middle of all their work because Jesus had already shown up.  So there Martha was:  so many things to do, and now she had no help.  It was going to be a total raving disaster of Biblical proportions, just a complete and total mess.  How embarrassing that Martha's home, meal and facilities weren't going to be ready for God's Son!

"Ugh, thanks for nothing, Mary, you didn't even hide the alcohol!"

And then there's Mary.  She's young and excitable.  And hey, it's not every day that the Savior of all mankind stops by, so she's bursting with energy and peeking out the window every couple of seconds to see if Jesus and crew are walking up the driveway.  She does her best to help her sister, who frankly is kind of being a drill sergeant about everything and more than a little of a pain in the neck.  Still, she does everything she can, and she doesn't say much about Martha barking out orders like Gordon Ramsey on meth, but before too long she hears laughter and footsteps outside.  She runs to the window and peeks through the curtains to see Jesus and his disciples walking up.  She promptly drops the broom and runs out the door to greet him.  Once she's welcomed him in, she's forgotten all about polishing the silverware and watching the kreplach boil.  She sits down as close to him as she can, forgetting even her own culture and its taboos, because she is hanging on every word he's saying.

Meanwhile, Martha is about to have a fit because everything isn't done, the Lord's already there, and where in the heck is that no-good layabout Mary anyway??  Things will never get done!  It's over.  The party is ruined!  What will the neighbors say?  What will the disciples think??  What a fine mess!

"Get back in this kitchen right now, or I will knock you into the next dispensation!"

So she storms out and finds Mary sitting on her stupid, lazy butt right in front of Jesus.  Perfect!  And now she's even more of an embarrassment, because women were not to sit in that position in their culture.  Women should not be sitting at the feet of the master.  That is the right of the men.  She can't believe her idiot sister!  Sure, Jesus is being nice enough and not saying anything about it, but UGGGGHHHH, stupid Mary!!

"Jesus, I'm really struggling to get things done in the back," she says.  "Don't you think my sister ought to be back there giving me a hand?  This is women's work, right?"

And then Jesus got up in Martha's face and shouted her down!  "You're wrong!" he said.  "You don't need to do all this fixing up.  You ought to be out here with me learning some stuff!  Mary's a better Christian than you!  Get your priorities in line!  You need to be more spiritual!"

And then Martha slinked away, totally p'wned by the only begotten Son.

"And I cleaned the toilets and made the special Nazareth-style latkes for him!  I work and I slave..."

Except that's not what really happened.

For most of my life, I have read that verse and come away with the lesson that Mary was right and Martha was wrong.  No, not just wrong, but dead wrong.  Martha was a jerk!  She was sinning!  It seems right, doesn't it?  Mary was doing the right thing, and Martha wasn't.  Mary = good, Martha = bad.  Right?

Not really, though.

In fact, Martha was very much right in her desire to be hospitable to Jesus.  There are tons of scriptures in the Bible that command us to be hospitable.  Hebrews 13:2 tells us to show hospitality to strangers.  1 Peter 4:9 says that Christians should show hospitality to each other.  Mark 9 talks about giving a cup of water to the thirsty person.  There are many other places where the Bible talks about hospitality, and Martha showed a great desire to make things comfortable for her special guest and his people.  In fact, we can reasonably assume that she had been busting her butt to get things in order, so much so that she ultimately ended up frazzled and somewhat defeated.

It's very important to notice that Jesus did not scold her for what she was trying to do.  She was absolutely right to be hospitable.  Her only fault was that she got too caught up in preparing for the moment that she had not left herself enough time to enjoy that moment.  

Aren't we guilty of that all too often?  I know I am.  I remember preparing a Chinese food dinner for visiting family, and I was so set on doing it right and making it authentic.  But then the tomatoes and eggs--a cornerstone dish of this meal--absolutely did not work out right.  They were awful.  And I got so angry and irritated that I just couldn't enjoy the meal.  I literally did not want to eat.  I'd have rather thrown it all in the trash and gone out to McDonald's.  I was like Martha in this situation.  I let the stress of providing hospitality actually turn me into someone who was inhospitable.

"All eggs and all tomatoes CAN BURN IN HELL!!!"

So Martha was probably right to be working hard, and let's face it, she was probably justified in being put out that she suddenly found herself without a partner, someone who had no doubt promised to pitch in and help with everything.  Let's be honest:  shouldn't Mary have done just a little bit more?  Wasn't it really kind of rude for her to run out when she'd promised her sister to do her part?  Martha's heart was 100% in the right place.  She knew the Lord was coming, and she wanted to make things nice for him.  What could be wrong with that?  And she was trying really hard, too!  And if I think about it, Jesus' words sound less like the condemnation that I imagined they were for so long, and more like "Hey, Martha, it's cool.  Your house looks great, the food is delicious, and I'm having a really great time.  You don't have to work so hard.  Come on in here and sit next to Mary and let's visit!"

There are some things that Jesus did not do.  He did not get up in her face and chew Martha out.  He did not say that her preparations were worthless.  He did not get up and storm out of her house.  He did not "disfellowship" her for following a different path than Mary.  He did not disown her.  He did not condemn.

Let's think about Mary for a second.  The passage in Luke indicates that Mary was sitting at his feet, and while that may sound like absolutely nothing now, back in those days that was a big no-no for a woman.  She was sitting where the men should be seated, and if anything, the women should be sitting at the back.  One might accuse Mary of forgetting herself, at best, if not completely thumbing her nose at tradition and culture.  She was being at least somewhat presumptuous, if not outright defiant.  

And again, it is extremely important to note that Jesus did not correct her for this.  This is yet another of several passages that show us that the roles of women were changing, and that Jesus was breaking with the patriarchal system and moving toward egalitarian treatment of both genders.  But still, given the culture of the time, Mary might have been faulted for such a thing.  Certainly she did forget her commitments to her sister. She was just so gung-ho to hear Jesus talk that she threw caution and decorum to the wind.

So who was right?  The hospitable one who got a little overworked and stressed out?  Or the over-eager, naive one who abandoned her responsibilities and usurped the position of the men in order to be near to Jesus?

Perhaps they were both right.

I know, right?

Mary was right to listen to Jesus.  And Martha was right to be hospitable to Jesus.  Both were doing the things that they thought would serve him best.  Jesus did not condemn Martha.  He just told her to chill out for a moment.  When she came out there to chew Mary out in front of Jesus, because she didn't react to Jesus in the same way, he said "hey, it's cool!  Don't worry yourselves!"  

Wouldn't that be amazing if it could be applied across the board in our world today?  If we could disagree without one of us having to be wrong?  If we could just stop and think "hey, maybe that other person has a perspective that I haven't thought about just yet?"

Imagine whole churches that said "hey, you like to pass the Lord's Supper with only one cup, but I prefer to do it with multiple small ones.  No big deal!  You do it how you feel you ought to, and I'll do it my way!"  What if congregations said "well, we see that this group across town uses instruments in their singing.  We prefer not to, because we see it a different way, but we're not going to condemn them to Hell for using a piano in their service.  Maybe we just haven't looked at scripture the same way.  No point in being a jerk about it, right?"

NO, WE CANNOT AGREE TO DISAGREE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO USE THE KING JAMES VERSION!  IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR JESUS, AND IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!

Think about it, believers.  How many times has it happened that you have read a certain passage of scripture over and over for years, believing one way about it, and then suddenly you hear it again, as if for the first time, and you have realized that it meant the complete opposite of what you thought it meant before?  How many times have you had epiphanies about things that have caused you to change your whole mindset?

Imagine for a moment that we're all seeking to do what's right, but there are just some things that some of us just haven't understood yet?  And what of those all around us who may be in different stages of understanding?  And why assume that any of us will completely understand everything perfectly?

Wouldn't Jesus' prayer for unity be answered if we could get over this black and white thinking and understand that, like Mary and Martha, sometimes two people can be right, but in different ways?  

Am I right??

---------------------------------

NOTE:  These thoughts were inspired (and in some cases directly lifted) from Rev. Andrew Taylor Peck's sermon at Lindenwood Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) this morning.  He gave me so much to think about, and I thank him for challenging me.

A Tale of Two Churches

For today's thought, I just want to relate two stories from two different churches.  I will do so without much editorializing.

The first story has been featured in the news in a big way recently.  In fairness, the Church of Christ mentioned in this story is one of the hardline conservative congregations, closely associated with the Contending for the Faith group, which even most in the Church of Christ will admit is an overly strict and dogmatic group.

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/21/repent-or-leave/

Collegedale's decision to grant benefits to same-sex couples was a victory for Kat Cooper, a gay detective who championed the months-long effort that made the Chattanooga suburb the first city in Tennessee to offer benefits to same-sex spouses of its government employees.

Cooper's mother, Linda, stood by her side throughout the process. She held tight to her daughter's hand at a July meeting over the issue. And the two embraced after the City Council's 4-1 vote on Aug. 5.

But those small acts of support translated into collateral damage that left Linda Cooper and other relatives separated from their church family of more than 60 years. And one local advocate for gay families says the church's stance was the most extreme he's heard of in years.

Leaders at Ridgedale Church of Christ met in private with Kat Cooper's mother, aunt and uncle on Sunday after the regular worship service. They were given an ultimatum: They could repent for their sins and ask forgiveness in front of the congregation. Or leave the church.

Their sins?

"My mother was up here and she sat beside me. That's it," said Kat Cooper. "Literally, they're exiling members for unconditionally loving their children -- and even extended family members."

But the family's support of Kat Cooper was as good as an endorsement of homosexuality, said Ken Willis, minister at Ridgedale Church of Christ.

"The sin would be endorsing that lifestyle," Willis said. "The Bible speaks very plainly about that."

Willis, a father himself, said the church didn't expect the Cooper family to disown their daughter.

"But you certainly can't condone that lifestyle, whether it's any kind of sin -- whether they're shacked up with someone or living in a state of fornication or they're guilty of crimes," he said. "You don't condone it. You still love them as a parent."

Hunt Cooper, Kat's father, said his wife is still too distraught over the church's actions to comment.

"She is just so traumatized and so upset," he said. "It has been days and she's still crying. It's almost like losing a family member."

Linda Cooper's parents were practically founding members of the Dodds Avenue congregation, Hunt Cooper said. Her father was a church elder and his picture still hangs on the wall there. Kat Cooper grew up helping her grandfather clean the pews and helped her grandmother hang bulletin boards for Sunday school.

"This is not just some casual church they dropped in on," he said.

Hunt Cooper said his family rejects the notion that being gay is a lifestyle choice. And his wife, along with her brother and sister, believed repentance would be hypocritical. So the decision to leave, devastating as it was, was a simple one.

"There's no sin to repent for," he said. "And she's not going to turn her back on her daughter."

Church of Christ congregations are mostly independent of one another, with church elders and ministers setting the tone at each. So the Coopers suspect church authorities are mostly behind their confrontation. Many congregation members didn't even know of the situation, Hunt Cooper said.

In the South, it's not uncommon for families of gay people to feel unwelcome or shunned at church, said Matt Nevels, the presiding officer of PFLAG, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Nevels was a longtime minister at Red Bank Baptist Church, but left in 1995 because of the church's hard-line stance on homosexuality. His own views on the matter were shaped by his son, Stephen, who announced he was gay before dying of AIDS.

Through PFLAG, Nevels regularly meets with parents and other family members of gays and lesbians. And it's commonplace for the revelation of a gay son or daughter to put family members on the rocks with their church communities.

"Most of the churches in this area are homophobic," Nevels said. "So it's not unusual for things like that to happen."

But usually the distance grows subtly. A cold shoulder. A sense that you no longer fit it. It's uncommon that people are delivered such an overt message, as was the case for the Coopers.

"I've never heard it extended to other family members like that," he said. "That is definitely an extreme case."

But Willis, Ridgedale's minister, says the church regularly approaches people to repent for all sorts of sin. Church leaders have given other members a similar choice to repent or leave for sins such as living together before marriage, he said. And the Coopers' battle was public, captured by television cameras and newspaper stories, giving the church no choice but to take action.

"When a person is in sin they are asked to repent, to make a statement, renouncing their participation in sin," he said.

And here is the second story.  A friend of mine submitted this to me on Facebook.  The church mentioned is not a Church of Christ.  It is a non-denominational Christian church.

 I just read the summary of the article in the comments [the above article about Ridgedale CofC--jd], and I really didn't want to get involved in a long discussion. The comments are a little disturbing, and the Church of Christ would really not support my church.  

Every Thursday we go to four strip clubs in Savannah and bring dinner to the girls. We don't support their decision to dance, but we can understand how that could be a desperate decision for any mother or young woman trying to take care of herself and her children. We go without judgement, and get asked weekly by the new dancers why we come. We simply tell them we are there as women to help out other women.  

As a result, these girls have seen that we are different. Many of the girls now come to church and are trying to find other jobs. We had our first baptism 2 weeks ago. It has been an amazing ministry to be part of, and I look forward to serving when it when it is my turn each month. I can't imagine attending a church where my decisions were scrutinized to the riskof being thrown out of church.  

As one of the ladies that founded this ministry said, our job is to love the non-believers to Jesus. 

It is awesome. I LOVE being part of such a great ministry. The girls at the club where I usually go have started asking questions regularly about church and God. Or they ask us to pray for them in situations, and a year ago no one was talking about church in this club.

 Which church do you think more closely follows Matthew 25:40?

I'd love to hear more stories of what your church is doing to reach out to people.  Let's hear about the amazing things churches are doing!  (And yes, I'd love to hear stories from Churches of Christ as well.)  Sound off in the comments!

Denomination - an excerpt from "Reviving the Ancient Faith"

Richard Hughes writes in "Reviving the Ancient Faith":

Second, Churches of Christ began as a sect in the early nineteenth century and evolved into a denomination during the course of the twentieth century.  This fact would hardly be striking, or even very interesting, were it not for the fact that Churches of Christ have passionately rejected the labels "sect" and "denomination" as pertinent to their own identity.  Indeed, their resolute rejection of these labels has been central to what Churches of Christ have been about for almost 200 years.  Since their denial of these categories flies in the face of social reality, their story is one of deep irony and absorbing interest.

Often, these people have argued that they have restored the primitive church of the apostolic age and are therefore nothing more or less than the true, original church described in the New Testament.  For this reason, Churches of Christ generally have denied that they had a defining history other than the Bible itself and have expressed little or no interest in their particular history in the United States.  Many members of Churches of Christ remain to this day virtually ignorant of Alexander Campbell, the early 19th-century leader who helped give shape and texture to this movement in its founding years.  What is more, many of these same people studiously avoid learning about Campbell or any other important leader from their past:  they fear that to acknowledge dependence on any human leader would make them a denomination with a human founder rather than the true, primitive church founded by Christ.  This unique self-understanding has served to create institutional identity out of a denial of institutional identity, and it has shaped the history and character of Churches of Christ in countless and often paradoxical ways.  The material I present in this book substantiates the assertion a colleague and I have made elsewhere that churches that root their identity in efforts to restore ancient Christianity are susceptible to the illusion that they have escaped the influence of history and culture altogether.

It seems to me that the only thing that you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."

It's hard arguing with Church of Christ people.

I really don't even need to continue that sentence, but it is especially hard to argue with them when it comes to the issue of whether or not they are a denomination.

See, "denomination" is a really, really bad word to them.  Being in a denomination, to a Church of Christ member, is much worse than being an atheist.  When they speak of them, they say the word "denomination" in the same way that you or I would say "pedophile rapist Nazi."  And they absolutely do not consider 

a member of any other denomination to be a Christian.  Baptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, Mormons, Catholics...they're all "non-Christians."  Almost every Church of Christ has an unwritten policy about people outside "the church."  You don't marry a Baptist, because they're a "non-Christian."  They wouldn't let a Presbyterian preach in their pulpit.  They wouldn't invite a Lutheran to lead a prayer.

Church of Christ ministers, especially, get very picky about the word "denomination."  They claim that the word "denomination" means the same as "division."  However, as many have pointed out, that's not only meaning of the word.  The etymology of the word specifically addresses "naming," and that would clearly apply to the Church of Christ.

But clever boys that they are, the Church of Christ has come up with an ingenious way to get around being named.  They have decided that they will no longer make the title above their door a proper noun, and they will accomplish this by failing to capitalize the "C" in "Church."

Throwing all grammar rules to the wind, the Church...oops, sorry, church of Christ has clearly aced us all, and can in no way be called a denomination!  No sirree, boy.  

Except it doesn't work that way.

Even amongst themselves, they call it "the Lord's church," and they are "members of the church."  Never ever should you say "I'm Church of Christ," when someone asks you where you attend.  That's denominational, even though they're referring to themselves.  Somehow.  In some world.  You should call yourself a "New Testament Christian," as opposed, I suppose, to an Old Testament Christian.  Or simply "Christian," but don't put the words "Christian" and "Church" together in that order, because that's a whole different thing.  

It really boggles the mind the way logic bends in the Church of Christ.

"I just spent hours proof-texting from the Old Testament and the epistles!  I wish we could drink!"

They try to further get out of it by saying that they have no hierarchy, and that the highest power in the Church of Christ is the local congregation...

...unless of course, you count all the various Christian colleges associated with the Churches of Christ.  They will, of course, claim that they are not beholden to them, although most congregations will only hire graduates of certain schools.  The non-institutionals will only hire from Florida College, the sectarian conservatives will only hire from "approved preaching schools," the conservative mainline will only hire from Harding or Freed-Hardeman, possibly Faulkner.  The slightly liberal will hire from Lipscomb or York.  I've been part of churches that would only hire from the Memphis School of Preaching.  (And how...just HOW does a "loosely connected body of believers" manage to have so many institutes of higher learning, anyway?)

Oh, and let's not forget the editors of the various journals that have great power and sway over Churches of Christ.  There are entire magazines devoted to calling down congregations and members that are in error, congregational autonomy be hanged.  Publications such as Seeking the Old Paths, Contending for the Faith, and The Spiritual Sword are constantly serving as de facto bishops within the Churches of Christ.

So, like it or not, there is a hierarchy to be followed within the denomination.

They also claim non-denominational status because they don't have a creed.

No, not this Creed.  Nobody wants this.

Except that they totally have them.  Granted, they are not designated as such, but books like Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ by Leroy Brownlow definitely serve as such.  Then there are the aforementioned journals, which serve as on-going, ever-updated monthly mini-creeds.  And then there's the "unwritten creed," which any former member of the Church of Christ can describe to you.

They also claim to have no allegiance to Alexander Campbell or Barton W. Stone, even though key parts of their denomination were shaped by these men.  

So how to argue against all this?

The answer is simple.  You can't.

I thought for a week about what I would write to counter the Church of Christ's claim to non-denominational status, but I realized that there is effectively nothing that will convince them of this, since it is such a key feature of the church.  If this pillar falls, then their whole church may crumble around them, so Church of Christ people will not budge on this one, and there is pretty much no convincing them.  You're wasting your time trying to do so, is what I'm saying.

Unfortunately, this also gives them a bullet-proof shield when you criticize anything about their denomination.  Say anything that is not praise and you are "slandering the Lord's church," or "mocking the bride of Christ."  They are unable to separate the two, because in their mind the Church of Christ is the one and only true church, and no other denomination can lay claim to it.

Cognitive dissonance runs very deep.  They have convinced themselves that they are not a denomination, and you, little man or woman, are not going to disabuse them of that notion.

So let's talk more about this one later...

"A" My Name is Alex

I know I promised to get further into Richard Hughes' book and discuss denominationalism today, but I've got a bit of a headache and tired eyes, so today I wanted to present you with something that really struck home with me and made me think.

I recently bought the fifth season of the show Family Ties on DVD.  It's one of my favorite all-time shows from my childhood, and I enjoy watching it even today.  But this particular day, I watched a 2-part episode that I had never seen.  The title of the episode is "A, My Name is Alex," and it deals with the aftermath of the death of Alex Keaton's young friend in an automobile episode.  Yes, it is a "very special episode," but it breaks almost all the conventions of the sitcom and was the winner of multiple awards, including an Emmy.

It resonates with me, because even at the age of 36, I have already had two best friends die.  One passed due to health complications and another, like Brian McNamara's character in the show, died in an automobile accident.  Both were far too young.

These episodes make you think about the people around you and how important every person, no matter how insignificant they may seem at first, is to your life.  And at the end, Alex must answer the question "do you believe in God?"

Enjoy.





(video courtesy of Hulu)

No fellowship with denominations? Are you sure??

The Church of Christ, by majority, rejects what they term "having fellowship with denominations."

Consider this post from the Church of Christ's "House to House" publication:

1. The church of Christ is not a denomination, and having fellowship with denominations implies falsely that it is (cf. Ephesians 5:11).
2. People in denominations, generally speaking, have not obeyed the Gospel, and having fellowship with them implies they have (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).
3. Worship unauthorized by God is a very serious sin, and having fellowship with those in denominations implies that it is not a serious sin (cf. Matthew 15:9; John 4:24).
4. We should not have fellowship with denominations because they do not teach the doctrine of Christ, and having fellowship with them implies that they do (cf. 2 John 9 - 11).

"Fellowship" may need defining in this case.  It does NOT mean that individual members can't have friends or family with whom they associate who are also members of other denominations.  Rather, when you hear a Church of Christ person condemning fellowship with denominations, it generally means this:

• Denominational preachers cannot be invited to speak at a Church of Christ service or event.
• Church of Christ preachers may speak at a denominational church, but only for the sole purpose of railing against and preaching against the doctrines of said denomination and attempting to convert them all to Church of Christ doctrine.
• Church of Christ ministers may not participate in any sort of ecumenical grouping that would put them on equal footing with preachers from other denominations, such as a Ministerial Alliance.
• Churches of Christ may not participate in any way in a charity drive or community service that is coordinated by another brand of church.  They may not support the Salvation Army.  They cannot do volunteer work in a Catholic soup kitchen.  And so on, and so forth.

Churches of Christ would not think of allowing members of other denominations to preach for them or teach in their Sunday School classes.

Or would they?

I don't THINK we would.  Hey, did I forget to brush my teeth this morning?

Why not open up your Church of Christ hymnal?  Turn to songs like "Blest Be the Tie That Binds," "He Leadeth Me," "I Need Thee Every Hour," or "My Jesus, I Love Thee."  Churches of Christ sing these songs every week, even though they are penned by those horrible, denominational Baptists.

OK, OK, how about "Blessed Assurance," "I Am Thine, O Lord," "Jesus Is Tenderly Calling You Home," "No Tears in Heaven," or "Tell Me the Story of Jesus"??  Not only are those songs written by a Methodist, but the writer is also a woman!"

Usurping CofC men's authority from beyond the grave.

So, you see, Churches of Christ have been giving not only fellowship, but also a platform in their worship services for years.  

How many of you would imagine that a Church of Christ would allow popular contemporary Christian music artists like Michael W. Smith, Amy Grant, or Twila Paris to have a forum or speak in their assemblies?  They wouldn't so much as allow these "denominational" people to lead a prayer or lead a song.  Yet, they will incorporate the words they have written into worship services over and over.  They will allow them to speak through their lyrics and melodies during their worship hour without hesitation.  It has become quite fashionable to lead "Thy Word Is a Lamp Unto My Feet" and "Friends" in Churches of Christ.

So, really?  You don't fellowship denominations?

We led your worship service this morning, and you didn't even know it!

OK, so let's put the song book aside.  How about the Bible itself?  Surely they've got some of their guys on it...  except that their favorite version is the King James Version, which was done by the Church of England.

But there is one version of the Bible that a Church of Christ member helped to translate.  Jack Lewis, of Harding Graduate School, is on the translation committee for the NIV...which, unfortunately, most Churches of Christ don't really like very much. 

Next time, we consider the question...just how non-denominational is the Church of Christ?

Origins of the Church of Christ - Part 1

Origins are always an important part of any story, fictional or true.  Knowing where something comes from is important to know why something is what it is, what brought about its characteristics, and where it will likely go and what it may become in the future.  To borrow inappropriately from Robin Williams, "what it is, what it was, what it will be!"  (See, you can prooftext "Mork and Mindy" just as well as you can the Bible!)

This is the reason, for better or for worse, that every time someone makes a Superman movie, they have to include the story of his birth on Krypton.  To understand Batman, we have to understand the impact of the murder of his parents.  It's why it is important to know about Lily Potter's sacrifice for her son in the Harry Potter series.  Nothing else that happens in the story makes sense without knowing where everything started.  Because without the origin, we wouldn't have what exists now.

And then we wouldn't have Hermione.  And that makes us sad.

Outside of the realm of fiction, knowing origins is just as important.  We certainly don't want to elect people who don't know the history of our country.  (Although, arguably, we continue to do it anyway.)  It is important, for instance, for African Americans to know about slavery and Jim Crow, because that is their origin in the USA.   If you want to be a computer whiz, you've got to know about DOS and ENIAC and any other combination of letters that I'm just guessing have something to do with early computing.  It's important to know where movements like Confucianism began, in order to understand and work within Chinese culture today.  Without understanding your own origins, you can't know who you--yes, you!--really are.

And that is a major problem within the Church of Christ today.  Hardly any of their adherents are aware of their origins.  And those who are aware only have a cursory knowledge of it, and what they do have is almost always very skewed.  The vast majority of adherents to Church of Christ theology truly believed that their church was founded in 33 AD, by Jesus Christ himself, and that there is a straight line between them and the first century.  Many people in the Church of Christ have never heard about Alexander Campbell or Barton W. Stone.  They think Cane Ridge is a place in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.  They have no idea that there ever was such a publication within their church as The Christian Baptist.  (If someone published a journal with that title today, they'd lose their minds.)  They don't know that their church is related to the Disciples of Christ or the Christian Church.  They've heard of the words "Restoration" and "Movement," but they don't know what happened.

And the tragic fact is that there are a lot of preachers out there who are telling them that it's not important and they don't need to know.

In the introduction to his history of the Church of Christ, "Reviving the Ancient Faith," Richard Hughes states that there were 4 major themes that shaped the character of the tradition from their beginning.

This many.

He writes:

First, the defining characteristic of Churches of Christ throughout their history, until late in the twentieth century was the notion of the restoration of primitive Christianity--the attempt to recover in the modern age the Christian faith as it was believed and practiced in the first century.  This vision flourished especially in the heady, utopian climate of the early nineteenth century when Churches of Christ in America first began.  Many Americans of that period, deeply impressed with the glories of the new nation and of the land it occupied, imagined that a golden age was near, perhaps even the final triumph of the kingdom of God  In that context, a number of religious movements dedicated themselves to recovering primitive Christianity in all its purity and perfection.  The two most notable manifestations of that impulse in the antebellum period were the Churches of Christ and the Latter-Day Saints, though these two traditions took that impulse in very different directions.  Throughout this book, I use the term "primitivism" to refer to this attempt to recover the ancient faith.

The correlation that Hughes draws between the newly settled America and the rise of the Church of Christ is quite interesting.  It puts into perspective their initial desire to go back to primitive religion, because at that point in history, America was a very primitive place.  These early Americans were just starting over, and thus it makes sense that they'd want to do the same with religion.  They'd left the constraints and persecution of the Church of England.  They'd established a new country.  This new world was a mulligan for them:  a chance to do everything over, do it differently and fix what wasn't working.

Churches of Christ today claim to be emulating the primitive church, as well, and often they audaciously claim to be identical to it.  Many of them claim to actually be the primitive fully-restored first century church, and they insist that folks from the first century would be right at home in their worship services.

"Yes, I'm an elder at the Damascus Road Church of Christ in Jerusalem.  We didn't worry about kitchens in the buildings in my time, because fire wasn't invented yet."

Personally, I find the Church of Christ claim to primitivism somewhat suspect.

For one thing, it appears the first century church were doing things that caused quite a considerable lot of them to end up in jail or just flat-out murdered.

Meanwhile, you tell a 21st century Church of Christ person that they can't make everyone pray at a football game, and they go running around, clucking like chickens:  "PERSECUTION! PERSECUTION! THEY'RE TAKING OUR RIGHTS! THE WORLD HAS GONE TO HELL!" and then when they're tired of that, they retire back to their expensive homes to rest on their over-stuffed couches and beds.  Then they write on Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Wordpress, newspaper comment sections, and literally anywhere else they can navigate to with their high-end computer and high-speed internet connection to tell people all over the world how oppressed they are, not noticing the irony in that nobody is deleting their ravings or stopping them from saying anything they want.  And then they go to their nice, palatial, tax-free, multi-million dollar church building on Sunday and talk about how they no longer have any rights, and are persecuted, and everyone else in their nice Sunday suits nods and agrees with them.

They told us we can't make everybody stop doing stuff we don't like!  HOW LONG, LORD, HOW LONG??

Meanwhile first century Christians just pretty much either stayed under the radar or got croaked.

In all seriousness, though, do any of you truly imagine that a first century gathering would look anything like a Church of Christ service?  Would they be wearing ties, or would they have on what they worked in that day?  Would they have a 3-song-a-prayer-and-a-song format before the lecture?  Would someone read announcements?  Would they be in pews?  In a dedicated church structure?  Would they pass crackers or unleavened bread for the Lord's Supper?  Would it be in nice pewter trays?  Would women have been allowed to help pass it around?  Would they have "opening" and "closing" prayers that were memorized and repeated every week?  Would they have an invitation song?  Would someone stand in front of them madly swinging his arm around, leading the group in a song that they were reading from a hymnal?

Let's take it a step further.  Would the service of the Church of Christ today look anything like this?

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters?  When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.  Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.  If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.  If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.  Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.  And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.  For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.  The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.  For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people.  (1 Corinthians 14:26-32)

My feeling here is that Churches of Christ are not nearly as primitive as they let on.

A good question at this point might be this:  Are we really even supposed to emulate the first century church in everything?  It's a question worth asking.  Or maybe, just maybe, we're meant to carry the core of Christian values (love God, love each other, etc.) into our OWN culture and make it work there, without trying to force the practices and values of an ancient culture in places they were never meant to fit.

Also, a key point here is where Hughes hints at "the final triumph of the kingdom of God."  That turns out to be a key reason for the beginning of the Restoration Movement that produced the Church of Christ.  But that's fodder for yet another post.

This is literally the only non-pornographic image that came up when I searched for "tease" on Google Images.

I did say there were 4 major themes in the origin of the Churches of Christ, didn't I?  Next time, I'll talk a little bit about the D-word.  "Denomination."  Ooooooh...