Over the last several posts, I've discussed events and education that challenged my Church of Christ upbringing. At the advice of David Fleer, I remained associated with the fellowship. "Every fellowship has it's problems. You understand ours," he told me. Looking back, I should have listened to Mel Storm who knew me better. He'd told me that I should consider attending grad school at a Disciples school.
In any case, the experiences and education caused me to question other Church of Christ doctrines that don't neatly fit in any other essay. Our churches have a view of early church leadership that doesn't quite cohere with what historians know. The Bible makes it clear that the early church met in houses. There seem to have been several houses in the big cities. Those houses, of course, would have had leaders, but those leaders would have worked with leaders who coordinated between houses. In this way, there may have been a difference between elders and overseers - a difference the Churches of Christ do not recognize.
Moreover, the Apostles (and the elders in Jerusalem) clearly functioned as a council for the churches. Several churches answer to Paul's authority when their local leaders can't resolve issues - and Paul seems to answer to Jerusalem. The Bible doesn't suggest that no one should fill the slots of these council members or of people like Paul once they die. In fact, we see in Acts that when a slot is emptied by Judas, that the slot is filled. James the brother of Jesus ends up sitting on the council. In other words, it doesn't look like congregations in the early church are run independently in the way that the Churches of Christ suggest. One could still question the development of church leadership structure in later centuries, especially the pomp and circumstance surrounding it. Nevertheless, I came to believe that the Church of Christ's primitivism concerning church leadership reflects a misunderstanding of scripture.
Learning everything I've explained so far and many other things I don't have time to explain caused me to turn Church of Christ rhetoric on it's head as a way of testing it's viability. I wanted to know whether we took our own rhetoric seriously. We say that we don't use instruments because they're not in the Bible, but our women pray with uncovered heads. Paul is pretty explicit about the head covering, but says nothing clear about instruments. Why are the pianos the doctrinal priority? We have pulpit ministers when the early church was taught by its elders and bishops. We have youth ministers, youth groups and church buildings - none of which are in the Bible. We don't speak where the Bible speaks and keep silent where the Bible is silent. Instead, we search the scriptures to justify what we already believe and ignore counter-testimony.
At the time that I realized this, I became reactive to Church of Christ doctrine. I probably wasn't always very kind.
As I matured, more and more I realized that this is just how people usually search for information. We're so damn sure of ourselves. It really condemn us, perhaps not to hell, but to whatever ignorance we were born into. I wish I could say that this general knowledge of human behavior has made me more gracious. It probably has, but not as much as it ought to. I suppose that's a part of human behavior too. I'm as flawed as the people I'm inclined to criticize.
In any case, the experiences and education caused me to question other Church of Christ doctrines that don't neatly fit in any other essay. Our churches have a view of early church leadership that doesn't quite cohere with what historians know. The Bible makes it clear that the early church met in houses. There seem to have been several houses in the big cities. Those houses, of course, would have had leaders, but those leaders would have worked with leaders who coordinated between houses. In this way, there may have been a difference between elders and overseers - a difference the Churches of Christ do not recognize.
Moreover, the Apostles (and the elders in Jerusalem) clearly functioned as a council for the churches. Several churches answer to Paul's authority when their local leaders can't resolve issues - and Paul seems to answer to Jerusalem. The Bible doesn't suggest that no one should fill the slots of these council members or of people like Paul once they die. In fact, we see in Acts that when a slot is emptied by Judas, that the slot is filled. James the brother of Jesus ends up sitting on the council. In other words, it doesn't look like congregations in the early church are run independently in the way that the Churches of Christ suggest. One could still question the development of church leadership structure in later centuries, especially the pomp and circumstance surrounding it. Nevertheless, I came to believe that the Church of Christ's primitivism concerning church leadership reflects a misunderstanding of scripture.
Learning everything I've explained so far and many other things I don't have time to explain caused me to turn Church of Christ rhetoric on it's head as a way of testing it's viability. I wanted to know whether we took our own rhetoric seriously. We say that we don't use instruments because they're not in the Bible, but our women pray with uncovered heads. Paul is pretty explicit about the head covering, but says nothing clear about instruments. Why are the pianos the doctrinal priority? We have pulpit ministers when the early church was taught by its elders and bishops. We have youth ministers, youth groups and church buildings - none of which are in the Bible. We don't speak where the Bible speaks and keep silent where the Bible is silent. Instead, we search the scriptures to justify what we already believe and ignore counter-testimony.
At the time that I realized this, I became reactive to Church of Christ doctrine. I probably wasn't always very kind.
As I matured, more and more I realized that this is just how people usually search for information. We're so damn sure of ourselves. It really condemn us, perhaps not to hell, but to whatever ignorance we were born into. I wish I could say that this general knowledge of human behavior has made me more gracious. It probably has, but not as much as it ought to. I suppose that's a part of human behavior too. I'm as flawed as the people I'm inclined to criticize.