How I Became a Humanist #14: The End of Church of Christ Dogma

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.

Glen Bernie Church of Christ (Non-Institutional)

For years, I've wanted to attend a non-institutional Church of Christ.  I finally made the time.  This was different from visiting other religious groups, I knew what to expect more than I knew how to behave.  I wanted to ask honest questions without starting a debate.  Even now, I'm not sure if I succeeded.

As I pulled into the building I noticed a sign saying just "CHURCH of CHRIST."  Notably, it didn't say Glen Bernie Church of Christ.  I walked into a small foyer that wasn't exactly meant for socialization.  There was enough room for coat racks, entrances to restrooms and a few billboards, but it was clear that the building wasn't a social area.  I didn't see classrooms or a fellowship hall while I was there.  I don't think they have them, but I could be mistaken.

In the foyer, I noticed plenty of literature.  Most of it was what I would have typically expected in a Church of Christ.  There were pamphlets concerning the errors of other churches' doctrines.  There were some about instruments, others about Mary.  The literature generally carried this theme, "we're the right church because we believe the right things which we get only from the Bible."

The Churches of Christ distinguish themselves from other Christian denominations by claiming that they everything they do is sanctioned by the New Testament.  They claim that this isn't true of other churches.  Many of their members believe that the only way to be a true Christian is to organize their beliefs and practices around verses that come straight from the Bible.

They had pictures of their members - this is a common thing in the Churches of Christ.  I couldn't tell you where the tradition comes from.  They also had a missions board.  There was a time when missions boards were common in Churches of Christ.  I remember seeing them all the time as a child, but I hadn't seen one like this in years.  The church supported more than 15 missionaries around the globe.  They could afford to do this because their pulpit minister didn't take a salary, "he has enough money," one of their elders explained.  Another member told me that they preferred not to pay their ministers.  My guess is that both statements are true.

The service was like most Church of Christ services.  They sang acapella (without instruments).  The men led the service while the women sat quietly.  In most Churches of Christ, women aren't even allowed to pay offering plates or communion trays.  During the offering, they announced the visitors were not expected to donate.  During communion, which the Churches of Christ share weekly, they read a lot of scripture.  I'm not used to seeing this in mainstream Churches of Christ, but their message was similar to the one I'm used to, "Do this in Remembrance of me."

Throughout the service, I couldn't help but notice the diversity in the congregation.  The congregation was about 1/3 black and the black members of the church led the service as much as the white members.  I've never seen this in a Church of Christ; they are usually somewhat segregated owing mostly to history.

After a few more songs, there was a scripture reading.  The whole congregation read together.  This is the second time I've seen something like this in a congregation with a large number of black Christians.  Is this a part of their tradition?  Is this something one sees more frequently on this side of the country?  Or is it an odd coincidence?  I have no idea.

Eventually, one of the elders began to preach.  His preaching style was different from anything I've ever seen.  More than anything, he read scripture.  He must have read 3 or more chapters of scripture total during his sermon, commenting on a particular topic here and there.  He didn't jump around from one verse to another, which is what I'm used to seeing in Churches of Christ.  Instead, he read large swaths from each section he chose.  He was a good reader.  The overhead projector helped the audience follow along.

The service ended like most Churches that grew up in the 1800s revivalist traditions do.  There was a call for people who believed to be baptized.  The elder didn't threaten hell, but warned of the possibility of hell for those who left the building without being baptized.

I didn't get to socialize the way I normally do after a service.  I was in such a rush I forgot to get pictures.  I talked with the elder who'd spoken for a few minutes, but it wasn't the sort of engagement I usually experience at a church.  I couldn't tell you why.  Was it me?  Was it them?  Was it the structure of the building itself.  Architecture shapes the personality of a community.

One of the few things that really stuck out in the conversations that I did have was their pride in not having a pantry for the poor.  This particular issue came up several times when I asked them what was special about their church.  "We don't have a pantry."  It was explained that Christians were supposed to do good in the world, but that the Church's job was simply to preach the Gospel.  It's difficult for me to understand a theological position that allows for purchasing several projectors or flat screen TVs, but does not allow for a pantry for the poor.  I'm also uncertain how allowing members to collaborate by donating to a pantry is a bad thing.  I wouldn't even bother to mention it, but aside from being biblical based, it was the one thing that was mentioned to me at least three times during my few conversations.  They were proud of their lack of a pantry.  They were proud of the fact that, as a congregation, they are do not help the poor.  

Judging Faith: Golden Plates and the Virgin Birth

"Don't judge unless you want to be judged, because the standard you use to judge others is going to be used to judge you." - Jesus of Nazareth

While being Mormon is more socially acceptable than it was a decade or two ago, Mormon beliefs are still looked down upon by Christians and non-Christians alike.  As an example, the Broadway show, The Book of Mormon, made fun of the religion in a way that would not have been acceptable if the show had been about Jews or most other religious minorities.

There are several reasons why both Christians and non-Christians have significant issues with the Latter Day Saints.  Christians have trouble accepting additions to their scriptures, Mormons have several additional books that they consider equal or superior to the Bible.  Religious skeptics are hard on  Mormonism because Joseph Smith was a known huckster before he became the prophet of Mormonism.  Other people are annoyed at their door-to-door evangelism.  There are any number of other issues that people tend to make fun of the Latter Day Saints - it all goes together hand-in-hand.  My biggest criticism of Mormonism is the poorly written scriptures that are supposed to have originally been written by different authors, but aside from those taken directly from Isaiah, all look to be written by the same author.  #LiteraryCriticism

Whatever the criticism, the level of ridicule hurled at Latter Day Saints seems unfair to me.  Are their beliefs so much stranger than those of others?  Never mind whatever beliefs comes to mind.  When discussing faith all ideas become relative.  It is just as impossible to prove a virgin birth as it is to prove golden plates.  And neither idea is more plausible than the other.  It only seems so because one is more familiar to us.

Growing up, I heard Church of Christ apologists bash the Latter Day Saints by stating that archaeology questioned their claims concerning Jews on the North American continent.  Those same apologists cast doubt on any archaeology, geology or any other form of science that questioned their own faith sometimes saying, "absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence" or something like that.  The irony of this was completely lost on them.

If we are honest people, we have two choices, we can resort to faith or not.  If we do it is dishonest to judge others who do the same.  Once we believe in a Virgin Birth, we have no right to ridicule those who believe impossible things with no evidence.

How I Became a Humanist #5: Visiting the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)

One summer, while working security, I saw a young woman walking out of the apartment complex holding a Bible.  We struck up a conversation.  She was headed to a Disciples of Christ church.  On account of my Church of Christ background, I was instantly curious.

The two denominations had originally been part of the same movement.  They began dividing after the American Civil War, mostly along the lines of north and south.  Like most northern churches, the Disciples of Christ were more liberal, both theologically and politically.  The southern Churches of Christ were more conservative.

The young woman invited me to come out one Sunday.  I took her up on the offer.  It would be my first time visiting a church outside the Churches of Christ.

I had expected the Disciples of Christ to differ only slightly from the Churches of Christ.  I knew, for example, that they used instruments and had missionary societies.  These were the main doctrinally contentious issues in the late 1800s that eventually caused the split.  It hadn't occurred to me that the churches had evolved since.

I stepped in to hear a pipe organ playing.  While I wasn't opposed to instrumental music any more, I didn't care for the organ.  The church had a female minister who shared the ministry with her husband.  I was slightly unnerved by their being a female minister.  The Churches of Christ teach that women are not supposed to teach or hold leadership in the church.

Like the Churches of Christ, the Disciples have their Communion Table Front and Center

If this had been all that had happened, I would have left the church an unchanged man.  But it wasn't.  During the service, the church read about 2 whole chapters of scripture. I'd never experienced anything like it.  Our churches read a few verses in support of the sermon.  This church read scripture for it's own sake.

The whole experience was a slap in the face to my Church of Christ upbringing.  I'd been taught that our churches were the only ones that read the Bible.  If that was true, why were they reading so much more of it in their services than we were?  Why were they reading it for its own sake when we weren't?  I admired the practice and was curious what others I might be missing out on.  I began to question my beliefs about other churches.  My faith in Church of Christ rhetoric had suffered a significant blow.  It would not recover.

How I Became a Humanist #3: A Brief Period of Atheism

At the same time that I was questioning Church of Christ doctrinal priorities, I was also questioning Christian behavior.  In church we were taught that Christians were loving, good and kind and that non-Christians were immoral.

I'd grown up poorer than most of my peers.  I was familiar with spam, government cheese, and government grapefruit juice.  I wore clothes from resale shops and hand-me-downs from people at church -  I sometimes got other kids clothes without them knowing that their parents had given them away.  This was incredibly embarrassing.

Me (front and center) with my adopted brothers and sisters.  We're standing on the deck outside the house.  The house siding is made of shingles.  The haircuts, glasses, clothes and even appearance of the house in the background are indications of poverty - though certainly not of desperation.  

On top of that, my family suffered a great deal when I was young.  My 4 year-old brother died when I was 7, less than 2 years after my parents' divorce.  After the divorce, my father almost never came around.  This was harder on me than he realized.  About a year after my brother's death, it looked like my grandmother would pass too.  She had breast cancer and a series of cardiac issues.  She was in and out of the hospital constantly even beyond the point when our house burned down, when I was 12.  From there I struggled a great deal with depression often to the point of being delusional.  The only other thing you need to know is that kids can be mean - this was true both at school and at church.

My brother's headstone

Around age 14, I started to grow out of my depression and actively fought my social awkwardness.  By 16, I was becoming well-liked at school.  The people at church, however, didn't change their behavior towards me.  The contrast between the two environments made me feel that Christians were more judgmental than non-Christians.  It wasn't only how they treated me, it was their attitudes towards others.  (I wonder if I would have noticed had they treated me well).

The truth is that I went to an odd high school.  Our class president was a young woman, and the vice president was a gay fellow.  Our school government had a Mexican woman, a black dude and a Muslim girl too.  This was in a predominately white school.  It was a school where I'd go to school activities like basketball games in black clothes and combat boots.  Admittedly, I was somewhat unique myself, but East Detroit High School was a place where anyone who wanted to get along with others pretty much could.

East Detroit High School

 The perception that Christians might be less moral than non-Christians followed me to Rochester College (a Church of Christ school).  My first year there was a social adjustment.  I was even poorer than most of the students there than I had been to my peers in high school, and my social upbringing didn't prepare me to get along with my classmates.  I was comparatively rough around the edges.  I felt ostracized and alone.  I deeply missed being in a non-Christian environment where who I was mattered more than what I could afford to wear.

I decided that if this was how Christians acted that I didn't want to be one.  By the end of my freshman year, I rarely attended church.  I was beginning to consider myself an atheist.  Then one night, I came home late to my mom pacing the floor.... (To be continued)

How I Became a Humanist #2: Pianos, Water and Doubt

The baptismal is elevated above the pulpit representing it's place in Church of Christ theology.  The prominence and sanctuary-like status is typical of Church of Christ architecture. (Roseville Church of Christ)  Notice, also, the lack of a piano or any other instrument.

When I was 11 years old, I declared Jesus to be the Lord of my life through baptism.  This is considered to be the moment of salvation in the Churches of Christ (CofC).  For my age, I was knowledgeable both concerning my church's doctrines and the scriptures.  From the age of 8, I had a habit of reading the Bible while laying on the floor next my nightlight.

I was also familiar with other CofC literature, both books and pamphlets - these were generally apologetic in nature.  They explained why the Churches of Christ were the truth church and all other churches were in error.  The assumption was that any doctrinal error could lead to damnation.

I believed this without reservation.  Logically, I tried to convert others to the CofC, classmates, teachers, even clergy from other churches including the Baptist minister where my grandfather worked as a janitor, and the priest at St. Veronica Catholic Church.

In my early teen years, however, I began to question the Churches of Christ's doctrinal priorities.  Having read the Gospels, I thought it was odd to place so much value on ritual and so little value on loving each other.  By the time I was 16, I was becoming skeptical about our certainty that we were the only one's going to heaven, especially over something as trivial as instruments - which, I didn't think the New Testament was so strict about.

By the time I graduated high school, I was developing a cynical attitude towards Church of Christ legalism.  I was even beginning to turn our basic logic against itself - a logical tool I've been fond of using ever since.  See, the CofC teach that if something related to worship or church organization isn't in the Bible, that we shouldn't do it.  Nevertheless, we had pulpit ministers, youth ministers, Sunday school, hymnals and a whole host of other things that clearly weren't Biblical.  In other words, we only applied our own logic only when it was beneficial.

I still thought that the Churches of Christ were the closest churches to the true church and I still assumed that, our goal should be to emulate the first century church.  At the same time that all this was working itself out, I was noticing other things about Christians and non-Christians that I will discuss in my next post in this series.

Growing Past Condescension

When I look over the first essay in my series How I became a Humanist: Jesus Freaks in the Churches of Christ, I think it would be easy for a reader to assume that I look down on members of the Churches of Christ for holding different values than I do.  At one time I certainly did.

For whatever reason, it's natural for us to look down on people who think differently from ourselves.  This is true not only in matters of religion and politics, but even in sports, hobbies and music where the issue of taste is almost completely arbitrary.

The fact that we look down on one another for disagreement over arbitrary things is odd enough.  What's odder is that we often look down on people who believe things we up until recently believed ourselves.  As an example, ten years ago most Americans opposed gay marriage.  Today, most Americans support it.  That's all very well.  What's not is that many of the people who've changed their minds look down on those who haven't yet adopted the new perspective.

The problem is that by looking down on people who think differently from us, we are often looking down either on our past or future selves.  We are also ignoring the fact that we have all been very wrong about things we felt very strongly about in the past and likely will be again in the future.  When I think back at some of the things I used to believe, I sometimes cringe, but I don't think this is the right response.  Past me only knew what past me knew.  He didn't deserve to be judged harshly by other then, or to be judged harshly by me today.  I don't deserve to be judged harshly for the things I don't yet know today, and neither do the people who may not know what I do about one topic or another.  This is all the more true since it is often possible that they're right even though I'm so damn sure that they're wrong.

One of the things I will tell you today is that the Roseville Church of Christ is an amazing church full of kindness and warmth.  It easy as a young person to see all the various faults in a particular ideology.  It's as easy to criticize a church, country or political party as it is to criticize your parents.  And since those behaviors are a healthy part of young adulthood, I'm glad to have gone through them.  I'm also glad to have grown past them.   Today, I realize that my teachers, preachers and fellow Church of Christ members were doing the best they could.  They were great people who were practicing and teaching those things they believed would make me a better person and the world a better place.  I love that church and its members more than I can say.  

How I became a Humanist #1: Jesus Freaks in the Churches of Christ

Much of early moral development can be framed by two seemingly non-contradictory value systems.  I was (1) raised by Jesus Freaks (2) in the Churches of Christ.  When I was young, it seemed to me that the moral lessons taught at home were the same as those taught in the church.  It wasn't until I left Christianity that I realized the moral tensions between the two environments and how that tension ultimately led to me ditching Christianity as I was familiar with it.

Roseville Church of Christ Pulpit, Lord's Supper Table and Baptistry (notice the lack of a piano).

My family went to church at  the Roseville Church of Christ at least three times a week, Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings and Wednesday nights.  If the Church had an activity that the family was able to participate in, we participated in it, whether it was a youth camp, Vacation Bible School or charity related event.  At home, we prayed before every meal, and were encouraged to read the Bible on our own.  From age 8, I did.

At church we learned typical moral lessons, don't cheat or steal,
etc.  But we were also taught that members of the Churches of Christ were probably the only people going to heaven.  The reason for us believing this was because the other churches were full of doctrinal errors.  They worshiped incorrectly.  They believed the wrong things.  And their churches were organized improperly.  While I never heard anyone say it overtly, the message delivered was that performing rituals like baptism and communion properly was more important to God than whether or not we were racists or spouse abusers.  In any case, it was adherence to the rituals and beliefs that made us Christians, even if the behaviors were considered important.

At home, on the other hand, I was taught to love all people.  My mom and grandparents both took in foster children with a wide variety of needs.  They took in kids of every race, too.  My grandparents visited the sick, and often gave more than they could afford to help those in need.  What's more, they didn't hate anyone.  We never made jokes about race, hair color or ethnicity.  We didn't even make fun of gays.  I didn't grow up with sexism either.  Additionally, my family put high stock in education and critical thinking.  My mom rarely said, "because I said so," for the things I was supposed to believe.  I was not instructed not to ask why, the way that many children are.  At home, compassion and reason were central to morality over anything else.

When I was young, the two moralities were intertwined in my mind.  I assumed that everyone at church believed the same things about loving one's neighbor and asking questions as I did.  I also assumed that my family believed the same things about God's priorities.  It didn't seem to me that the two value systems were in conflict.  During my teenage years, friction developed.  More on that later.