I’m back…

Well, to sum up from last week. I came to some, I think, important conclusions:

1) the NT writers view look at tradition in two different ways. Sometimes it can be seen negatively (e.g. Mark 7), sometimes positively. It is the second kind (the positive kind) that I will be addressing in this and future posts re: the early church.

2) CofCs are notoriously inconsistent on the subject of tradition. This comes from the anti-tradition tendencies of our spiritual forefathers, as well as a sort of generic American revolt against “old” things. (Other sources could probably be named, but I’ll stick with these two for now.)

3) This anti-tradition stance has led to some extremely unhealthy consequences. First, since we never “look under the hood,” so to speak, we don’t realize that many of our beliefs and practices do not have their origins in the NT, but rather at some point in later history (which is a bad thing for a movement built around a principle of restorationism — the merits of which I’ll save for a later post). Second, because we are unable to think back more than a generation or two (generally speaking), we don’t realize that our beliefs and practices have changed — sometimes drastically — in a relatively short amount of time (which, again, is a bad thing for a group whose preachers loudly proclaim that they have always believed and taught the same things).

So what’s next?

I’ve been asked to discuss what relevance the early church/patristic period has for present day Christianity. Of course, when I was asked that, I immediately started talking about CofC views about tradition. Such is the nature of this venture: we confront in order to understand and to have a way to approach other larger topics.

I say that mainly to emphasize that when I’m talking about the early church I’m not referring to the early 19th century. There’s just a lot of background that needs to be covered before we can effectively discuss the early church itself (err… herself).

So, today, there’s one more bit of necessary background: I intend to analyze — to deconstruct, really — the traditional CofC view of church history. At the end of this little exercise, we’ll turn to the early church proper.

****

NI Churches of Christ hold to a view of church history that says this (WARNING: Satire ahead):

The first century was a golden age. The apostles roamed the earth and the “truth” (the content of which depends on whom you ask) was preached. First century churches provide a model for how all subsequent churches should look and act (except, I’m guessing, for Corinth): a cappella singing from Stevens and Shepard’s Hymns for Worship, multiple cups in the LS, Sunday school classes, Republican politics, no kitchen in the building, and a refusal to support colleges and non-Christians from the church treasury. Do you have a mental picture in your head? Good (it should all be clear from a simple unbiased reading of the NT, anyway). Well, by the time the church had lasted into its second generation, things weren’t going so well (1 Timothy 4.1-2). This, despite the fact that they had the NT to tell them exactly what to do. According to Paul, who lived to see this new generation of “Christians,” the Catholics were taking over. It wasn’t pretty. I’ll spare you the gory details and just tell you that before the ink was dry on the Book of Revelation, the church had entered into apostasy, complete and total apostasy.

From AD 95 onward, “church history” is a dark (and sad, really) tale of willful and deliberate disobedience to the express commands, approved examples (in the NT) and necessary inferences that our Lord left behind in the NT that was inspired by the Spirit (before the Spirit himself went on sabbatical — he hasn’t been heard from since, in case you’re wondering). Basically, the entire Christian Church extended its collective middle finger to Heaven. Some examples: creeds, monarchical bishops, transubstantiation, the Pope, original sin, infant baptism, candles, incense, instrumental music, idol worship, and Mary. The list goes on, but you probably get the picture. Some people during this time seem to have understood how bad this stuff was (e.g. Martin Luther) and they prayed to God about it, but since God doesn’t hear the prayers of sinners (John 9.31; Luther wasn’t baptized by immersion as an adult for the remission of his sins) all they were able to do was create more apostate churches.

If you’re starting to get depressed by all of this, don’t worry… help is on the way! In 1801, a mere 1706 years after the initial apostasy, a righteous man named Barton W. Stone held a Pentecostal-style revival at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, that ended with a call for Christians to be united with one another (a good message — the Lord doesn’t like Pentecostals, though, so don’t go getting any ideas). Well, a few years later, another righteous man, named Alexander Campbell, prayed to God and realized that having a bunch of different denominations was wrong and all of the apostasy that had swamped the church centuries ago could be erased by replicating the first century church. But wait, that’s not all! If everyone could agree on how to do that, then there would be unity, which is what Barton Stone wanted. Bonus!

This plan almost worked. Unfortunately, two things happened. When Campbell’s followers tried to call the apostates out of their denominations into the One True Church that they were restoring, a lot of people didn’t listen. Quite a few did, but not nearly everybody. Second, a lot of the people who did come into the One True Church were really just apostates in disguise; within one or two generations, they had revealed their true nature by supporting things like missionary societies and organs (1 John 2.19). Even Alexander Campbell himself turned out to be one of them!

The One True Church kept on trucking, though. A couple more generations down the road other apostates were unmasked (premillenialists, ‘one-cuppers,’ ‘liberals’ and supporters of divorce). The story of the restored One True Church is the effort to stand for the Truth “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

SARCASM OFF.

****

Others have blogged about this understanding (and done a good job, I might add). It has been widespread in Churches of Christ for a very long time. My version, given above, is a composite from works by J.W. Shepherd, Brumback’s History of the Church, and countless adult class workbooks, tracts, journal articles and sermons.

More soon.

Advertisements

8 responses to “I’m back…

  1. LOL. hahahahahahaha. Chris, this is one of the funniest blog posts I’ve read in a long time. Thank you! Dan Greeson and I have been sitting here laughing our collective donkey off.

    Looking forward to your upcoming posts. But don’t give up satire altogether.

  2. Chris,

    My good friend, Kevin Burt, put me onto your site.

    I loved your rendition of “Church History”. The sad thing is that such is basically the “history” that I received during my training at a Church of Christ school of preaching…and my instructors were not trying to be funny.

    I joined the Church(es) of Christ over twenty years ago while a student at Auburn University. I had been a zealous Baptist prior to that point, so the campus minister at the Auburn Church Christ used my missionary zeal to point me to the Sunset School of Preaching in Lubbock, TX.

    My years at Sunset were ones that I shall always treasure. However, about seven years after graduating from Sunset, I showed my “true colors” and swam the Tiber. Now, for the past eleven years, I have been blissfully Catholic. While the reasons are multi-faceted, one of those facets is the matter of Church history.

    Anyway, this is your blog, not mine…so I’ll leave it at that.

    Peace, brother.

    Bruce Sullivan
    (former Church of Christ minister)
    Kentucky

  3. Hi Bruce,

    Thanks for stopping by and sharing your story. I really do agree: cofC ahistoricism is a problem in many ways.

    I hope you’ll stick around now that you’ve found this blog. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

    Chris

  4. Wow, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a more cynical outlook on the simple plan of salvation built around a simple message of God’s words. It is obvious someone or something has turned you (and Bruce) off to the wonderful church that Christ established. Not every congregation or teacher will be able to convey the mission of the church as laid out in the NT — love one another, assemble to worship the awesome and all-powerful creator of the universe…sadly some soon become disillusioned that the congregations aren’t doing this or joining in that. I guess I’m wondering if you think the church of Christ was started as a reformation movement by Alexander Campbell and B. Stone, or has the church that Christ built endured through the ages (despite the lack of attention we may see in written history – i.e., the “1st Century” pattern endured)? Does it matter? Or does what matters is following the pattern clearly written out in the N.T.? And I guess I also wonder why you say the Holy Spirit “took a sabbatical?” Is it because many Christians don’t believe in continuing revelation, or miracles at the hands of holy-spirit-filled men? Of the latter, I would certainly say IF that is the doctrinal test, then since we are wrong, then there ARE holy-spirit-filled men wandering the Earth healing people? Please, someone give them a Yellow Pages and point them to the children’s hospitals! Ok — I, too, turned on the satire…but you get my point. The church of Christ (Rom 16:16) was est. by Jesus the Christ at Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after his resurrection, approx 30 A.D.
    I would think the apostasy you nearly ridicule that took place within a few years of each congregations establishment and growth might strengthen your faith since it was prophesied by the Holy Spirit through the N.T. authors. If the apostasy had not occurred, perhaps THEN I would begin to wonder if these N.T. writers were truly inspired.
    As of the Campbell movement 1700 years later, I’ve found references to congregations PRIOR to Mr. Campbell’s so-called restoration where the members call themselves simply Christians and churches of Christ, from Tubermore and Glasgow Scotland, to Paris, KY.

  5. What pattern?
    Where is the idea of a pattern in the NT? Clearly? I must be deceiving myself, but I don’t see some “clear pattern”? Pattern of worship? Pattern of doctrine? (what doctrines?) Pattern of interpretation?
    Your lack of regard for Mr. Campbell and his massive influence on the Restoration movement shows a complete ahistorical understanding to the basic pleas of almost all churches of Christ.
    I do believe Christ by the sending of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 “established” His church. I do not believe that it in any way resembles the Sunday morning worship assemblies of contemporary churches of Christ. Or the idea of an eldership as such (which by the way, what is the pattern of ordaining or choosing them?). Can a church exist without an eldership (whatever that is?)?
    Anyways, my suggestions would be to begin reading some of the context of the first century (which means knowing Second Temple Judaism and second century Christianity) and also reading some of the Church Fathers.
    Pax,
    daniel

  6. Pingback: red meat (part 2) « Anastasis

  7. Bruce Sullivan

    Well, Chris, you did say that you hoped to hear more from me. So… 😀

    I just want to let you know that the Coming Home Network International has released a new book this week: Christ in His Fullness. It is the story of my journey from the Stone-Campbell Church(es) of Christ to the Roman Catholic Church.

    One chapter is devoted to what I call a “Restorationist Ecclesiology” (and the alleged “Great Apostasy”). Most of the book is a personal sharing of the rich gifts of grace that God has given to me in and through the Catholic Church.

    Anyway, you may find it to be interesting reading, or at least an adequate door stop.

    Peace, brother.

    Bruce Sullivan

    p.s.

    If you are interested, the book can be obtained from the Coming Home Network International (www.chnetwork.org). Their number is (800) 664-5110.

    p.p.s.

    You really should be careful about who you allow to submit comments on this blog…Kevin Burt? Daniel Greeson? Man, don’t you care about your reputation?

  8. Very nice post. Let me know if you return to blogging in 6 months and I’ll add you to my blog list.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s