Monday, April 10, 2006

Stonite or Campbellite?

As a little girl growing up in Middle TN, I often heard church people referred to as "Campbellites". This confused me and made me think of tomato soup. When my father created a subdivision close to our house and began to sell the lots, many purchasers were members of our church. The subdivision became known in the Baptist community as "Campbellite Heights" and "Deep-Water Estates". These terms swirled around me as a child, and frankly, I never paid much attention. I think I do remember asking what a "Campbellite" was, and why we were considered one, but it didn't really spark my curiosity or catch my attention for very long. As I got older and learned a bit about our history in the church, I began to understand the connection more fully, but again, I'm not all that fond of history in general, so it didn't really catch my attention.

But, as I began to explore some of the practices in the Church of Christ (henceforth designated as 2C), I became a bit more intrigued by this Campbellite business. I was most fascinated by the 5 steps to salvation that all of us could recite in our sleep, and how that originated. The thing that struck me so as I looked into the history, is that things that I so took for granted as being deeply entrenched in scripture...just sometimes weren't. Men came up with a lot of these notions and when I discovered that, it put things in a whole new light.

I recently attended the Stone-Campbell Symposium in Eugene, OR where representatives of Churches of Christ (2C), Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (4C), and Disciples of Christ were in attendance. The purpose of this gathering was two-fold: 1) to promote a new work The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement authored by the speakers and 2) to explore our common history in the Stone-Campbell Movement with a view to becoming more accepting of one another.

Even as a non-history person, I was really fascinated by what these men had to say. I had never taken the time to sort out where these three groups came from, let alone consider our similarities. I had vague notions of why 2C split off from the other two...namely 1) the instrumental music question and 2) missionary societies. I learned that while these were the on-the-table issues, there were many more underlying matters to it than just those 2 issues. One being that after the Civil War when the official split occurred, southern Stone-Campbell churches were extremely poor and couldn't afford fancy buildings and organs. The Northern area of the country, which didn't incur the devastation of on-site war, was more affluent and could afford those accoutrements. Hence, the proliferation of 2C churches in the South and 4C and Disciples churches in the North.

As I was completely clueless about the 4C churches and Disciples of Christ, I was fascinated to learn that their split came later (in the 50's, I think), so that there are many people living today who experienced that bitter parting and whose emotions about that are still running high. Issues there seemed to mainly center around organization into a denominational structure by the Disciples and a refusal to do so by the 4C churches.

There are more details, but what I really liked about the symposium was learning about some of the people that were so dedicated to the ideal of "We are Christians only, but not the only Christians." There are many biographies in the volume referenced above, and although it is pretty daunting in size as it is a very complete reference, I intend to pick it up and read of these extraordinary individuals...both men and women. The one I remember most is T.B. Larrimore whose name I remember from childhood as I listened in on adult conversation. He was an extraordinary individual...well-respected in his day among many churches in the Movement. When controversies reached a head, he was pressed by his peers to "declare himself". He refused. He said (and I paraphrase) No one asked me when I was baptized what I thought about so-and-so. Neither do I ask those I baptize. I find that refreshing and inspiring. There are also stories of the first missionaries of the movement and how the Stone-Campbell churches have been planted overseas, and how they exist today. There are stories about women who were great influences...particularly in missions.

However, as grand as reconciliation within the Stone-Campbell churches would be, that's not our main purpose. Our main purpose, no matter what group we gather with, is the reconciliation of the world to God. We cannot turn our focus to anything else. But wouldn't the job be easier if our energies were devoted to that task together instead of picking at one another as we are sometimes wont to do. I think that was the purpose of the symposium. To point out that we are all on the same side and that we need to recognize that and get about the business at hand...that is, showing the world the way back to God.

5 Comments:

Blogger allison said...

Good thing you've got Dad too, to help sort out all those historical details.
I'm glad you're back home.
Love.

12:08 PM  
Blogger JTB said...

maybe we should chuck both terms and go for "stoners"? Or "stoned Christians?" just for fun.

never thought about the soup connection. i now have a very funny mental image of a bunch of andy-warhol-esque portraits of venerable bearded forebears...boy do i wish i could draw.

clearly i have nothing important to say here. i'm glad y'all got to go the shindig, and i agree that pursuing unity among our closest denominational relatives is a good goal to pursue in light of the larger one of reconciliation. it seems like most people want to get over our stiff-neckedness about recognizing Christians in other fellowships, and if we're willing to do that, it seems nothing short of hypocritical not to actively pursue reconciliation among the various parts of our own movement.

sales pitch: maybe dad should get a subscription to the stone-campbell journal. (http://www.stone-campbelljournal.com/)

1:38 PM  
Blogger R-Liz said...

"The thing that struck me so as I looked into the history, is that things that I so took for granted as being deeply entrenched in scripture...just sometimes weren't. Men came up with a lot of these notions and when I discovered that, it put things in a whole new light."

When did you starting seeing things differently? Did something prompt you to look at the history of the movement you were brought up in and try to have a different POV? And was it kind of frightening or unnerving (having the foundation you had stood upon show manmade cracks and imperfections)?

11:36 AM  
Blogger pat said...

R-Liz,

I've always been the type of personality that says "prove it", so there were things about church that I just didn't understand. The "no dancing" restriction of my youth, the "no alcohol" rule when clearly wine was a part of the culture then, the 5 steps to salvation, the "no musical instruments", the "we're the only ones going to heaven" mantra that didn't make sense to me...etc. I began looking in earnest in my early 20's, I guess, and went to the Bible. When I didn't understand how these conclusions were drawn, I began looking into the history of the movement. Then, as I read the flow of events that led to the 2C split, I began to make sense of why these topics were such hot buttons. I realized, I think for the first time, that the church that I was brought up in, like other churches and people, have baggage. And that baggage impacts attitudes and doctrines that are held on to. So, they changed from being set in stone, to something more fluid. Something that I could think about and ponder and look at from angles I'd never considered before.

And yes, it was a little disconcerting, but more than that, I think it made me mad that I wasn't told the whole story. I was just told the conclusion and wasn't allowed the freedom to draw my own conclusion. Moreover, I don't think a lot of people are aware of the whole story...they were just told the conclusion. And so it perpetuates. Very dangerous. If the conclusion is true, then it can bear up under scrutiny and needs to. If the conclusion is false, then it needs to be examined.

I have no more thrown out my past than I could toss my personality. I just have tempered it with more data and now have the freedom to draw my own conclusions. Some of which agree with what I was taught...some of which don't.

This is by no means restricted to the 2C churches. This is a universal problem...of churches, of politics, you name it. We are encouraged by scripture to study and know for ourselves what we believe. This is no small task and takes time and effort. I'm afraid the easier route for people is to just swallow what people tell them without going to the source. I'm a big "Miss Marple" fan, and as she says in one of her stories, "Very dangerous to believe people. I haven't for years". Not that I'm at that point, but I do realize how easy it is to trust someone else's thinking.

In the end, it is very freeing to examine matters for yourself. With the Holy Spirit as your guide, you can grow in understanding, grow toward God, and develop discernment and wisdom. And that, is pretty cool.

9:18 AM  
Blogger pat said...

This is a very tricky question because of semantics, I think. I don't consider I've left the church of Christ. But, I view that statement as more ecumenical than most 2C folks would. I have just relocated. I'm still a Tennessean, but I live in WA. I'm still a Christian, but I worship with another group. If 2C folks reject that, I'm afraid that's their problem, not mine. Know what I mean?

11:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home