Brothers and Sisters:

Can you please help this "uniformed" Baptist about some areas which you all keep referring? I know basically nothing about Church of Christ, Restoration, or similar areas/doctrines which is referred to on this board. I found this board by accident, but the depth of thought on some difficult issues which I keep finding brings me back. If I had some background, I think I could understand more.

I would like to know about the following:

Church of Christ generals

Church of Christ congregation organization/structures?

Acappella vs non-accapella?

Restoration theology

I know I am opening myself up to alot here, but I am curious. But please note: you will not "convert" me to anything, nor will I argue anything. I know what I believe; I want to know what you believe. While I consider myself a Baptist primarily because of two points (baptism is by immersion only, and administered only to those who consciously make a decision and commitment to Christ). Otherwise, I consider myself just "a Christian" without denominational ties of any kind (and I really am not looking for any). My views on the controversial subjects have for the most part been thought out and I can discuss them in some depth. I prefer to be non-radical, non-judgmental, and live out/act out my Christianity as a real human being rather than as a religious salesman (a criticism against some of my Baptist brethren, I am afraid).

If you want to know about me and my ministry endeavors, see my web page:

http://members.xoom.com/xenos_min/index.htm

Remember, this query is to answer questions about you -- not so you can raise criticisms about me!

-- Anonymous, December 17, 1999

Answers

Oh oh...messed up already. That first line was supposed to be "uninformed Baptist" not "uniformed Baptist."

-- Anonymous, December 17, 1999

Dr. Dewey,

I am sure there will be many who will do what you have asked not done, but I will attempt in brief to give you an overview. I will leave the deeper discussions to others. First of all the Christian Church/Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ come from the same heritage called the Restoration Movement. This movement started in the early 19th century as an attempt to restore the "ancient gospel" of the NT. Not one man alone started the movement, but men from various different denominational backgrounds emerged to seek after a pattern of church set after the early NT church. These ideal came to be known as the Restoration Movement. Men, such as Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Issac Erret, Barton Stone, Raccoon John Smith, etc. all sought this restoration. The idea is simple- let all peoples join under one name "Christian" in one "baptism" immersion, and in one faith- that is found in the NT. Each church is self autonomous in nature, and every practice should derive its origin from the Bible. One of the sayings that came out of our movement is "We are Christians only" which would be an accurate saying. Although many of us may vary in practice- we all share the spirit of unity in essencials.

Yes, even though we call for unity- we are divided. The split over the music non music issue mainly emerged around the civil war. Nothern Churches were wealthier and had more money while the southern we poorer. Thus, a rift between North and South churches became more evident over the issue of music in worship. THen it progessed in a matter of hermeneutics. The Church of Christ hold that if it is not found in the NT then we have no right using music in worship. The Christian Church (independent) sought for a more free form of worship seeing that if the Word does not lend itself to condemn music then it is ok and up to each church to decide. The Disciples of Christ, broke off and became their own denom. in the 1960's- they in general are more liberal rather than the conservative Christian Church/Church of Christ. The Disciples have fought enternally for years. One issue that they have been arguing over is the name change of God to Sophia- which is antibiblical and is a compromise that will destroy that denomination.

I am from an independent Christian Church background that uses instrument freely in worship. We practice weekly communion, and believers baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38). One Church that you might have heard of is Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, KY- which is our movement's largest Church (16,000 members). They just recently moved into their third building. THis newest building cost them over 78 million, which places it at one of America's most expensive Church building.

I hope this will do. I am sure others will give you more imput. But, I at this time am limited. I minister to a new Church and we are in the middle of a builing project and Capital Stewardship Campaign... in addition I am actively planning for an evangelistic crusade that we will hold in June to reach the lost. Our guest speakers will be Dr. Cecil Todd of Revival Fires and Bill Murray (son of Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hare- who helped to put prayer out of school). Bye, hope you find what you are looking for.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 1999

You will find much disagreement on some of what follows (a prediction of the posts, not internal to this note), but let me be what appears to the first response, and I will try to be general. I will try to remember to pinpoint any major diversion I make from the "consensus" view, as I understand it.

The Restoration Movement is religious movement dating from the early 19th (some would trace it back to late 18th) century that in its early days (and some will say still does) had the goal of being just Christian. This means not being Protestant, not Catholic, etc, just Christian. The Bible, not traditions of men, was/is to be the standard.

Some theology, in order to explain what happened in movement: "Speak where the Bible speaks, Be Silent where the Bible is silent" is a underlying principle to most of the Restoration ilk, and it was certainly true in the early days. The problem was and is, no one can seem to agree if silence means a lack of prohibition, or a lack of permission. [I find those who side on the lack of permission side to be inconsistent -- prohibiting instruments but no problem with owning a building or using four part harmony, for instance].

It is this lack of agreement some say [others say it was the Civil War, a North vs South thing] that led to the first "splinterings". These splinterings where over such things as pooling money to run missionary societies, orphanages, etc, and the use of instrumental music. Briefly, descendants of the original movement fall into several distinctions: the Disciples of Christ (often labeling their churches "Christian Churches"), Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (non-acapella, generally), International Churches of Christ, and churches of Christ (acapella). Two notes: first, most would consider only the second and fourth groupings as still apart of the Restoration Movement, and actually between those groups the lines blur. furthermore, you could actually do some splittings even further, e.g. among the acapella group, there are splits over support of orphanages, use of kitchens in buildings, etc (and etc and etc ...).

The philosophy of the RM blocks the churches from forming traditional denominational structure, for to do so would be to become something more than Christian in the Restoration mindset. So there is no formal structure above the local congregation (though a newly planted church may be under supervision for awhile by the congregation planting it). There are however gatherings (lectureships, seminars, etc) that provide some of the (non-financial) resource support a denominational congregation would traditionally get from a denominational office. Most of the unity that happens external to a congregation comes about from such gatherings, from member supported colleges, and from member and church supported journals and newsletters.

Within the congregation, the general pattern of organization for a "mature" congregation is as follows: there is a set of elders who typically "run" the congregation and oversee the hiring of staff, and under them are deacons. Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are generally used to establish the criteria for qualifying for the position of deacon or elder. In practice (note, I said in practice) often (note, I said often) what happens is that the elders act like a board of directors picked from among men who have been deacons for awhile (one is typically "promoted" from deacon), while deacons are often simply treated as elders in training. I will now be attacked for saying that, while others will lament saying "sad, scriptually wrong, but true".

It's hard to paint the picture of the Restoration Movement without writing a book. the "every congregation for itself" framework does leave it open for a large variety of thoughts and flavors. I went to high school in an area with maybe 300 members of churches of Christ, but four congregations. I lived in Tallahassee Florida for awhile, where there was maybe 1200-1400 members among nine congregations.

Now, you specifically mentioned "acapella vs non-acapella". I grew up acapella, came to the conclusion during my college year that all but one argument made for being acapella doesn't hold water (and if you use that one argument, you better sell off your building, fire your preacher, cancel Sunday School, Sunday night services, Wednesday nite services and a whole lot of other stuff, because otherwise you are a hypocrite). I remained in the acapella churches for the longest time, up until two years ago. Explaining the for and against cases would take more than I have written here. The previous poster has simplified the argument summary a bit too much. Maybe someone can point you to a balanced debate on some web page somewhere.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 1999

for more info go to www.shol.com/rgcc, it might help to see what we are about to a degree.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 1999

Hey Jon,

I have a question for you:

First, let me assume that you do not believe baptism is essential to salvation. I may be wrong, but most "Baptists" I know feel this way.

If this is true of you, here is my question:

Why does it matter that baptism is "by immersion only"?

If is not a necessary act, why quibble about the form?

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 1999

Duane -

Good question, and I think you made a valid assumption, too. Many Baptists do not believe that baptism is essential to salvation, but faith alone. However, so as to not just play ping-pong with opinion, let me quote "The Baptist Faith and Message" (May 1963 edition) which was adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention as what teachings they believe:

"Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privilages of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."

Baptists believe that baptism is the next step after saving faith. Baptism is commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) and is the first public act of a believer in confessing faith in Christ. Obedience is the keyword here...baptism really isnt "optional." A person who does not get baptised is actually not obeying the command of Christ to do so.

As far as why immersion, it is based on the scriptural precedent, beginning with the baptism of Jesus. Jesus was immersed by John. Jesus, when He had His disciples baptize, baptized by immersion. When Phillip baptized the Ethiopian, it was by immersion. Our English word "baptize" came from one which can be translated as "to immerse."

There are more scholarly writings about this; I will have to dig around in my library to find them. This idea of immersion being the only "correct and Scriptural" form is on of the reasons the Anabaptists were scorned during the Reformation by Roman Catholicism AND the Reformers. They believed that any other form of baptism was not scriptural, and therefore not valid. Which led to the baptising of those who had been members of accepted congregations (which was considered "re-baptising" -- hence the title "Anabaptist" ("ana" meaning "re-" or "again."))

I personally believe that immersion baptism is the "correct" method because it is the example given in Scripture. Now, like within your belief system, there are a wide range of opinions in Baptist circles about this. Some will accept baptisms of other churches/faiths that is not immersion if the individual believes that the baptism is valid. Others accept the baptisms of no other congregation than their own. So there is a spectrum of opinion. What is not up to opinion is that it is necessary, and that it is an act of obedience.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 1999

Dr. Jon, What you have written here is the most common answer I hear from anyone I ask, and is the most common explanation I hear while listening to the radio preachers I air on the station where I work. The idea seems most often to be strongly connected to a statement about the evils of "works salvation" -- "if you believe that you have to be baptised in order to be saved, then you are trusting in your own action for your salvation."

But it seems to me that what you have done with your traditional Baptist argument is simply to move the "required works" one step further down the line. If I were to grant that salvation comes before baptism, then wouldn't you have to grant that it is still a "required work" in your salvation, because if you don't do it, you're really not saved anyway? Can you help me straighten this out?

-- Anonymous, December 26, 1999

Sam -

I can understand that my answer can sound confusing. I am probably not being as clear as I could either. There are many people who could explain this better than I can (said with a smile -- my "area of expertise" is biblical apologetics).

I think this is the common answer because it is the most accepted (and may be the most acceptable) answer. There is a very strong aversion to "works salvation" in any form. Also as part of the explanation is a concept which I hear on this board often: what does the Scripture say? Based on the Scriptural evidence, the biblical order for salvation is repentance, belief, baptism. In all cases given in the New Testament, faith came first. Baptism symbolized the identification of a convert with Jesus, and publicly presented his identification with Christ to all.

The evidence of Scripture is that purification from sin is not the result of baptism, but of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9 jumps to mind immediately). While there are passages which seem to support that baptism saves, the preponderance of biblical evidence is that it is faith which saves. The act of baptism and the act of faith are usually so closely related in Scripture, that they are often expressed as one act. I like and agree with what Robert L. Saucy wrote about it ("The Church in God's Program," Moody Press, 1977):

"The blessings of the gospel are received through faith. Nevertheless, when that saving faith goes on to be expressed in an objective manner through baptism, God uses this act to confirm the realities of salvation. The faith of the individual is strengthened as it is openly expressed, and the saving acts of salvation are sealed and ratified with additional force to the heart of the believer."

This is how I explain it to myself, and I think it is in line with the "traditional Baptist" explanation. Baptists now acknowledge that there will be situations in real life where baptism may not be practical. There is some wargaming and what-if here. Is the faith of a person on their deathbed invalid because there is no time or resources for baptism? Does this mean that the individual goes to hell? Does a soldier on the battlefield who professes faith before going into battle, and is killed before baptism, automatically go to hell? I for one will not make that proclamation, because to do so invades the prerogatives of God. It is not my place to do that.

We will have to rest the discussion on baptism though. As I stated in my original post, my query was to learn about *you* and what you believe. I am grateful to all those who posted an answer. However, I think we may have to "agree to disagree" here because a) we are starting a new thread, and b) we each have our own strong convictions. I do respect what you believe, and have a small understanding why you do. My beliefs have been shaped through study, experience and seeking like your own has. At this point we must be careful to be "honest inquirers" and not out to proselyze. As I said also in my first post, you will not "convert" me to anything, nor will I argue anything. I am willing to talk about almost anything, to include my personal beliefs, but I think it should be on a different post or thread.

P.S. - I do appreciate all who asked questions about my understanding of baptism. There's nothing wrong with making me think! It is good to examine ourselves periodically to ensure our views are scriptural, and not institutional. If there is a strong interest in this subject, and my views are wanted, email me and I will do a more in depth dissertation on a different thread.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 1999