Christian Churches and Churches of Christ - Part 3

Robert had asked about “the Christian Church” and their differences from the “churches of Christ.” That's a good question and a tricky one. We've already noted a few things about the group called “Disciples of Christ” and their liberality and differences from both “the Christian Church” and the “churches of Christ.” But, what are some of the differences between “the Christian Church” and the “churches of Christ.”

It's worth noting that “the Christian Church” appears, to me, to have a “higher” view of “biblical authority” than the disciples; however, it may not be AS HIGH as they like to believe.

The biggest noticeable difference between “the Christian Church” and the “churches of Christ” is the presence or absence of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. Now, this, I'm thinking, is a symptom of a much deeper problem . . . Again, it goes back to the issue of “biblical authority” and our attitude towards God.

Historically, “the Christian Church” split from the “churches of Christ” in the early 1900's because of this very issue: the absence or presence of mechanical instruments of music.

So, the question becomes, “Are mechanical instruments in worship a problem or not?”

I'm bypassing much of the discussion to say, shortly, “Yes, it is a problem.” My argumentation on that issue would be lengthy and wordy, but to keep it short, here, I'll simply say that the bringing in of the instrument is something foreign to the practice of the first-century church, foreign to God's direction in the New Testament on worship and foreign to the New Testament entirely. Again, if we're striving to be the New Testament church (as seen in Acts), then bringing in this kind of innovation certainly diverges from pattern of the New Testament.

But, a common response from those among “the Christian Church” is that this is the only difference between the group and the “churches of Christ.” But, that may or may not be the case . . . In my experience, that's not entirely true . . . but even if it were, it's a big difference. The difference, here, stems back to a PARADIGM. And, even if our “Christian Church” buddies don't take the next (logical) step, they're already laying a foundation for the next generation to do just that.

Look, while the biggest observable difference between “the Christian Church” and the “churches of Christ” is the absence or presence of mechanical instruments, this actually is far more than it might seem. It is a difference, yet again, on whether or not we're to take the need for having “biblical authority” seriously. I've heard, from those within “the Christian Church,” that things have been getting far more liberal on several fronts and not just in regards to the absence or presence of the piano. Now, I'm aware that if something is permissible or tolerable and it happens to lead to something else that is bad – I'm aware that that doesn't make the initial thing (in this case, the use of a mechanical instrument in worship) wrong; however, that's not what is going on here. I'm suggesting that we have an initial neglect for “biblical authority” and that this is laying a foundation for a further widespread neglect in other areas. Why? Because it is the same thought process, the same paradigm, being applied consistently.

Now, to close, let me offer a few points of observation . . .

First, while the platform may vary from “Disciples of Christ” to “the Christian Church” to “churches of Christ,” all of these groups run the risk of getting into nasty waters if the need for “biblical authority” is simply neglected.

Second, each group should take seriously the need for structuring itself after the biblical pattern. If this were to happen, maybe, the three groups wouldn't have any purpose for splitting. Often, the mainstream or traditional or conservative – don't you hate those labels?! why are they even used in the firstplace?! – “churches of Christ” are accused of being divisive and difficult to get along with. They are accused of being “too picky” on the piano issue, and, as one couple from “the Christian Church” stated, they (“the Christian Church”) don't have a problem with the “churches of Christ” for their not using a piano but they certain had a problem with the “churches of Christ” for having a problem with their using one. But, again, I'd ask why the labels (traditional; conservative; mainstream) are even necessary?! It's almost as if they are markers to let people know that they are in the circle that takes “biblical authority” seriously. And, what does it mean for those who aren't in a conservative circle?! Don't you get the impression that those who aren't in a “conservative” circle are in a liberal circle?! Well, what's liberal about it/them?! It'd certainly appear that it is the approach to “biblical authority” for religious practice(s).

See, I'm one of those that wishes that labels like “conservative” or “traditional” or whatever would just die. They weren't used of the most rank congregations in the first century (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-12), but what happens when a congregation (that bears similarity to Corinth) simply decides, “We're going to continue to claim to be 'Christian' and wear the title 'church of Christ' but we're simply not going to take the need for 'biblical authority' all that seriously.”? Well, here's what happens . . . Those that think that way want to relabel themselves because they don't want to be identified with those strict, uptight, legalistic, divisive “church of Christ” folks. Now, we get labels from out of the “churches of Christ” like “Disciples” or “the Christian church” and labels or slurs within the “churches of Christ” like “mainstream” or “traditional” or “conservative.” I don't read of such labels within the New Testament, only “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26), but when people set themselves on certain paths and won't agree to try to find unity on “biblical principles,” the labels become inevitable, it seems.

Third, if we have friends in either of these groups, we need to start by finding out their views on “biblical authority” and trying to move to a more biblical pattern. Can we really be faulted for wanting to do that?

In summary, the difference – as you know by now – pertains to the approach to “biblical authority.” The “Disciples” are decidedly liberal, “the Christian Church” is more conservative than that – though that is changing, too – and the “churches of Christ” retain the label of being the most conservative (though there are congregations that are breaking that mold). It's not a simplistic assessment of “the Christian Church” as related to the “churches of Christ”; it's case-by-case work. But, if the common or general assessment holds true, and you've got friends in “the Christian Church” or the “Disciples” groups, see if you can't talk to them about “biblical authority,” point out where a relaxed view leads and presently is and see if you can't move them to a more serious, concerned, noble view. See if you can't convince them to be like the saints of the first-century in more regards than one and become part of the non-denominational, “called out,” group, the churches that belong to, work according to, honor, Christ. These people are, as the New Testament calls them, the “churches of Christ.”