Loading ...What Is A Mainstream Congregation
I remember when I was at the Brown Trail School of Preaching, that summer I traveled home to Nova Scotia, during that time there was a group from a congregation in the Searcy area. I was talking with the minister of the large congregation from the states, and he was informing me of the need to continue my education by going to another school. He stated “If people see only Brown Trail on your resume, they will not even consider you for a preaching job.” He mentioned “That I had to become more mainstream.” It is interesting because some congregations would only hire a preacher from a preaching training school, while others congregations would avoid a man with this background. As a minister, I seek to be balanced, not going to the right or to the left. The middle of the road seems to be safest to me. Coming from a preaching training school, attending Heritage Christian, Lipscomb, and FHU, and in the fall Harding Graduate, it seems that I have had a diverse education within the church. Also, it seems to me that we judge mainstream of course through ourselves, but also through our associations. I feel that Waynesboro is a mainstream congregation. I still remember when I was developing a preacher swap for the local minister’s in the churches of Christ, one elder asked me if we had women preachers, partake of the Lord’s Supper weekly, and worshiped with the instrument. I was a little taken back because this has never crossed the congregation’s mind or mine. It seems to me that I typically follow the advice of my mentor and ministers that I respect. The word ultimately shapes us, but it seems that the fellowship does too.
Related posts:
- Entering a Congregation
- Guidelines to Function in a Unhealthy Congregation
- Review of “Managing the Congregation”
- The Future of School
- Experiences at Brown Trail School of Preaching
About The Author
Allow me to have a little fun here…
I am not striving for balance but for being a disciple of Jesus. It is possible for the left side to be correct, or for the right side to be correct, or for neither side nor the middle ground to be correct. I thing we sometimes can become to occupied with trying to maintain balance that we never stand for what we believe is correct regardless of where that places us on the human continuum that spans between the poles of left and right.
Any ways, I understand what you are expressing, I am just have a little fun with it by messing with you on it.
Rex
Thanks Rex, I always need someone to mess with me. I think you are right, we need to follow Christ as closely as possible, but there are so many influences that the walk is difficult.
It seems that we spend too much energy on trying to find reasons NOT to fellowship with people that Christ calls my brother. Are they still my brother if I am not acting Christ like towards them?
Matthew,
I have no idea where I fit within the Churches of Christ.
Recently, I saw a survey of questions about where people were in religious beleifs, in fact, Terry, it might have been on your site.
Yes, it was on my site. Unfortunately, it did not get specific about the various factions among the Churches of Christ. I became a Christian among the non-instituitional churches. After 9 years among them, I became a member of a progressive church (which added an instrumental service a few years before I left). Now I am in an urban ministry. I believe it is a mainstream congregation, but the definitions are a little blurry as you indicated in your post. Perhaps I should simply say that I am a member of a Church of Christ and simply leave it at that. By the way, good post!
Mainstream is a term that has come from the culture that has developed in the last 30 years within the cofC. It really has less to do with theology and how others see us and more to do with how we see ourselves. Most people see the churches of Christ as a denomination including many of it’s members. While we don’t have bishops we have do have plenty of editors. While we have no official head quarters we have Universities and schools of preaching which still control and direct most of the thought and doctrine within the churches. When a congregation steps out of the “mainstream” for whatever reason or the least detail they can expect to be quickly reprimanded by the editors of our printed publications or even in the local secular news paper such as Quail springs recently was in Oklahoma. Anyone church, person, organization or University affiliated with the cofC that publishes material contrary to what has been traditionally believed and practiced will be swiftly written up by the brotherhood leaders. I can give you plenty of examples of all these things. The “mainstream” is those that agree and follow the power centers of the church of Christ universities and schools of preaching and editors of the Gospel Advocate, Christian Chronicle and similar publications. So the mainstream churches of Christ are perceived as a denomination because they act like one.
Defining middle ground can be tricky since we use ourselves as the judge of where the middle lies.
Paul seemed to combat differences created by opinion by resolving to know Christ and him crucified alone. It seems you gave such an answer once upon a time
Hey but Paul had to deal with variances based on culture when dealing with Jew and Gentile believers in the first century. If we only understood these variances didn’t compromise the core truth but were just different expressions maybe we wouldn’t have such a hard time identifying the mainstream.
But hey since at some point we decided that those differences needed to be qualified, divided and rebuked, what do we expect?
These are all interesting ideas, enjoyed the various thoughts about the topic.
I wouldn’t associate the GA as main-stream much anymore but if so, on the extreme right.
Joe’s statement about having the bishop/editor and the learning-institutions/denominational-control (perhaps more regional now) is exactly correct. Anyone received the nice little letter from “New Testament Church…Today” yet? Another group of men (all from 3 southern states) trying to exert control over the rest. Instrumental music is not an issue in the congregation where I serve despite the reality (like most CoC’s) that we have members on both sides of the issue, yet we choose to be all a capella and are a congregation at peace. So it is not an issue, yet a group of men want to make it an issue for us. What a crock! Do they not believe that we can study our own Bibles, work out our own issues as they become issues, clean up our own mess, etc…? And if we happen to need assistance, do they not believe that we can raise our own voice asking for help from the appropriate people?
One of the words we like to use to describe ourselves is “autonomous.” But that word means nothing as long as certain more well known people continue to try and control how every congregation interprets certain scriptures and makes decisions on certain issues.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex not only did they “NewTestatmentchurchtoday” send out letters to every listed church of Christ in the USA they printed a petition in the Christian Chronicle and asked all the ministers to sign it. One of my good friends who preached at a congregation in TN was fired because he wouldn’t sign the petition. This is denominationalism at its finest. But these same men are the ones who adamantly claim that we are non-denom and only the church of the New Testament. The main organizers are bible professors at Harding, Oklahoma Christian University and Abilene Christian University. They also claim that they are in charge of the so called mainstream middle of the road churches. So the mainstream seems to be those that agree and follow these brotherhood leaders.
I think I recieved a letter in the mail this week along a topic like the letter here, but I typically receive so much material that I never really looked at it for long. I do like the Gospel Advocate and perfer writing for them the most. I really like it. When I write, I usaully write for the Advocate. I typically agree with most of what is in there, there are articles sometimes that I dislike, such as one on clothing in the worship. It mentioned dressing up more than what I felt like the Bible mentions, as in Waynesboro people are not as well off as other areas, and people are put off by fancy clothing in this wonderful little town. So the advice was not good for Waynesboro. In a sense we should not try to lord over others, but there is a balance to this, as I am trying to get my first book published which I hope will influence ministers across the church for good.
Joe,
I was aware of the list and it is sad that it has been used as a litmus test.
Rex
Good thoughts, Matt. i find maybe people are too concerned about where they fit on a spectrum. i tend to agree with another commentator that i’ll do my best to follow Christ and let the chips fall where they may.
one thing i don’t quite understand though is why it would be wrong to identify people who aren’t following Christ. i realize we could have several good reasons for saying this shouldn’t be going on: (1) the critics are sinfully judging, (2) even if the critics aren’t sinfully judging, they at least run the risk of spreading cynicism, (3) the particular items being criticized do not warrant criticism, (4) the attitude of the critics is sinful. (maybe there are other wrong reasons as well.)
but suppose you personally had a criticism of someone’s practice or belief, and suppose that none of the above four reasons (or any other sinful or poor reason) were your reason. suppose you genuinely feared for the spiritual well-being of the person due to this practice or belief. do you really think it would be *wrong* of you to mention it to them for that reason? If your best friend was addicted to meth, do you honestly think you’d be *wrong* for talking to him about it or calling him out about it and maybe even raising your voice just to try and get his attention? Now listen, i wholeheartedly concede that there are plenty of CoCers who are criticizing and writing for all the wrong reasons. However, while you and i might not think of gymnasiums or applause as analogous to meth-addiction, it’s entirely possible that some among us *do* see those as analogous. should we really fault them for fearing for their family (even if that fear is ultimately un-grounded)? i think our mistrust and skepticism over the motives of critics can itself become just as cynical and wrong as some of the work of the critics themselves.
and one more thing, if you don’t mind me being a tad long-winded: i guess i don’t completely understand why some people feel its so ghastly to be like denominations in some ways. hear me out, though–i do think there are particular ways in which we must not imitate denominations. but basically what some commentators here are discussing is their dislike for what we might call CoC heresy trials. i’d just like to ask a couple questions that might get me into trouble. (1) Should we understand that absolutely nothing is heresy and nothing is worth calling out as wrong and unacceptable? is there nothing which disqualifies one from our communion? (2) is it really so horrible to have a clear standard of what’s okay and what’s not and who’s my brother and who isn’t? for instance, is it really so awful to have a creed? (i know some people probably either chuckled or just had a heart-attack even reading that question, but i’m serious.) i think there’s a sense in which a presbyterian (adhering to the WCF) actually has an advantage over me in regard to these questions. While i might think that the content of the WCF is wrong, nevertheless that presbyterian has some clear answers to questions that within the CoC it has become un-kosher to pretend to have clear answers to. But at base, doesn’t everyone think there is a drawn line *somewhere*? Why then fault people for trying to behave consistently with where they think that line is drawn? If that means your line excludes me, then i either need (1) to suck it up and try and get inside your line for the sake of your conscience, (2) try and teach you (without a sinful attitude) why your line is improperly drawn, (3) admit i’m outside your line and don’t even pretend that we’re communing with each other, or (4) stop criticizing you or griping about you and just love you as my brother/sister no matter how you feel about/treat me.
So Guy let me this ask this question. I may be misunderstanding you point.
Are you saying it is ok for church leaders to act in this denominational manner even though we all know is counter productive, just as long as they have all the right answers?
The fact is that no one will ever understanding the Bible entirely it is inexhaustible. It is ok to say this our understanding but we will always be questioning and re-understanding. This is called a search for truth. Drawing the line and telling everyone else this the truth all other ideas are wrong is not a search for the truth but rather fear that is trying to hold to the idea of being right about everything.
I am not faulting anyone just calling like it is. These same men who attempt to control the brotherhood with publications are the same ones who will adamantly argue they are not denominational because they have no official headquarters, pope or bishop. But they behave in the same ways as popes, bishops, synods etc. If you remember we have no creed but and the Christian Chronicle and Gospel Advocate have both published statements of faith that are the equivalent of creeds.
Here is the thing, going and speaking to your brother face to face about what one may consider to be heresy is completely understandable. Publishing articles about and idea (not the people or churches) you believe to be heresy is ok also. Publishing petitions asking people to sign statements of faith or face the consequences is not. The book Dave Miller wrote about North Richland Hills is a perfect example. If he wanted to argue for the idea of acapella music ok. But to address it to a person (preacher and church which has never visited nor has any plans to do so is wrong. This also reveals his true intent which is to make them do what he thinks is right. I asked since he felt so strongly about this that he would write a complete book about it, why not get on an air plane and go down there and meet with Rick Atchley and the elders? Dave Miller and Wayne Jackson and all the others will never go and face the people they accuse face to face or even call them on the phone because it is not in their heart. When Wayne Jackson published and article slamming ACU I offered to fly him down there to speak with Royce Money but he refused. This makes me question what his real intent was.
Joe,
I don’t see why anyone would ever need to possess an exhaustive understanding of the Bible in order to understand and know *some* things about it. And I don’t see how claiming that some belief is true and any contrary belief is false necessarily means I’m not searching for truth. Was Jesus wrong for unequivocally affirming Himself as the Christ such that all dissenters were wrong? If He was not wrong in doing such, then how could I be wrong by affirming the same about Him? I don’t see why me claiming that Jesus is the Christ and anyone disagreeing is wrong and will suffer eternal consequences as a result—I don’t how that mere claim makes me guilty of anything immoral at all.
I think your point about creeds is a good one. Prior to graduating preaching school, we all had to take a lengthy “true/false” type questionnaire regarding various doctrinal positions. Point being, enough wrong answers could put your graduate status in jeopardy.
(1) if many are willing to have such questionnaires that they treat as tests of communion, or the statements of faith you mention, then why not a creed? What really is the practical difference between the two? Other than just some historic precedent not to have one and that such gives us some sort of bragging point is all I can think of.
(2) I don’t see why, in itself, any such statement or questionnaire would be wrong. I might disagree with the *content* of the questionnaire or statement of faith, but that’s a separate issue. I’m saying, if I take X, Y, and Z to be non-negotiable essentials of what it means to be a Christian, then regardless of what X, Y, and Z represent, doesn’t that belief obligate me to certain things? Wouldn’t it be unconscionable of me to endorse as a Christian someone who rejected all three? If I sincerely thought someone was, in fact, my brother in Christ, should I really sit idly by while he moves toward rejecting one or all of these?
As to the rest of your examples, I’d really rather avoid all such name dropping for fear of being involved in talk of an un-Christian nature. All the people you mentioned may very well be mistaken. I don’t know. And I don’t want to presume to know their motives.
I agree, but when we start putting out doctrinal questionnaires, and petitions and statements of faith I mean creeds it lends itself to arrogance and the idea that we have it all figured out. When questioned about the status quo in the mainstream church many will respond with “well we already have that figured out”. I actually was given a failing grade by a University professor because I did not give the answer that agreed with his opinion on a doctrinal subject. If the name dropping bothers you, please understand there is no malice or gossip I have the emails to prove it and they are probably glad I brought it up. If you read their writings and publications they obviously don’t have any problem bringing other brothers up by name and condemning them. I was rather attempting to bring out what kind of behavior this thinking creates. Now that you have answered these questions I will direct you to read the history of the restoration movement starting with the declaration and address. Everything that the restoration leaders set out to oppose such as creeds doctrinal tests of fellowship etc. is now rampant with the “mainstream church of Christ” no one can in good conscience deny that this is reality. Now I know what you are going to say just like everyone else I have pointed this out to in the mainstream churches; well we don’t really have to remain true to the founders of our movement. Ok, but the truth is the mainstream churches of Christ now stand for almost everything they opposed. Another reality is the without Alexander Campbell Barton W. Stone, TB Larimore etc. there would be no buildings in the USA with church of Christ on the outside of the building. Do you know one of the main things that made Alexander Campbell leave the Presbyterian Church? He was denied communion because he disagreed with the clergy on an item of doctrine. This is one of the many circumstances that capitulated his journey to start the unity movement that morphed into the restoration movement and eventually into just another denomination without a Pope or headquarters. But I guess if you are sure of enough of what the Bible teaches (even though you may not know all of it) to draw lines of fellowship and put out creeds, petitions, and tests of fellowship then it is ok?
Joe,
Seems to me we could be just as arrogant about the fact that we don’t have a creed and this is something that makes us better than others or look down on them.
Even if it’s entirely true that the people you mention are mistaken, i don’t see any qualitative difference in dropping their names here versus them dropping the names of others elsewhere.
no, i don’t feel any unique obligation to agree with the ideas of early restoration leaders anymore than i feel any unique obligation to agree with Calvin or Wesley.
i think if there are *no* tests of fellowship, then there’s no definite content to the word “Christian.” Hypothetically, if i did know at least one thing that separated Christians from non-Christians, why would it be wrong for me to draw functional lines of exclusion based on that one thing?