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.

The Importance of Welcoming Those Who Are Different From Us

When I walked into Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church, I was quite noticeably the only white person in the building.  The looks I got from some of the other attendees made me confident that I was the first white person to attend one of their services in a while.

Nevertheless, I received a warm welcome from many of the members there.  Honestly, I was overwhelmed by their kindness.  They were a warm bunch to begin with, but I was certain that some of their kindness was intended to let me know that it was okay for me to be there.  I was welcome.

The Marquee outside Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church in DC

It's a nervous thing being the only one of your kind in a large group.  This is true when the thing that makes you different is obvious, like skin color or gender.  It's also true if the difference has to do with beliefs or sexual preferences.  We don't want to be excluded for those things that make us who we are.  We certainly don't want to feel unsafe because of them.

This is something to remember when we engage other people in conversation or when they visit our communities.  So often, it's easy to glare at a stranger with crossed arms conveying the idea that, "you disagree with me, therefore we are enemies."  We may not mean to be that harsh, but the person on the other end probably already feels unwelcome.  For most people, speaking up is itself a brave act.

Of course, this isn't only important when people enter our communities.  It's important when we enter into conversation with one another about those things over which we disagree.  It's normal to feel tension rise the moment we disagree with one another.  It's normal to feel defensive.  A disagreement can feel not only like a challenge to our beliefs, but also to our values.  It can make the person on the other end of the conversation feel like an enemy.

How our conversations shouldn't look

Of course, it's hard to have an open and honest conversation with someone we consider to be an enemy.  Our defenses go up.  We seek shelter from incoming ideas.  We shoot down the arguments we can, and evade others focusing on our ability to suppress the enemy with outgoing arguments.  When we do this, we're not having a conversation.  We're not learning from each other.  And really, we're wasting each other's time.  No one was ever converted either to Christianity or atheism by being sufficiently abused.

If we want to get past this, we need to welcome each other in these conversations.  We need to make it clear that the person on the other end of the conversation is not our enemy.  We need to show love at the outset.  This won't always work.  It won't always lead to a healthy conversation.  It certainly won't always lead to agreement or conversion.  Our goal should be increased understanding, rather than conversion.  We should not be in the business of annexing minds.  Conversation isn't conquest.  Done well, it is an attempt to seek truth together while enjoying each other's company.

The nice thing about this is that when others don't respond in kind, we don't have to continue the conversation.  If the goal isn't mutual understanding and seeking truth together, we can peacefully leave any conversation where our partner doesn't share those goals.  Let the angry people throw bombs and hide in shelters.  We should enjoy the search for truth and the good company of fellow seekers.

When we share ideas, even in passionate or contentious moments we should feel like fellow searchers, not like enemies