A Perspective from Churches of Christ

Developing within the Stone-Campbell movement of the 19^th century, Churches of Christ in the United States count more than 13,000 congregations with approximately 1,300,000 members.[1] With no formal organizational structures larger than local congregations, Churches of Christ maintain a sense of common identity even if relationships between particular congregations are strained by variations in practice. To a large degree, Churches of Christ arose out of a desire to confront perceived abuses in religious authority. By maintaining a radical congregationalism, CoCs demonstrate a populist means of influencing the world through the local church, while attempting to mitigate abuses of power of individuals and institutions.

Growing out of a Christian primitivism that sought to restore the simple pattern of the first century church Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) criticized religious authorities for disunity among believers. He urged believers to reject the “kingdom of the clergy”[2] and submit to the government of Christ alone. Christ did not establish denominations, nor should his disciples participate in them;[3] rather, they should accept the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice and be united in one body for the purpose of effective mission. Individual access to Scripture and salvation precludes the necessity for a larger religious structure and allows for a radical commitment to congregational autonomy.[4]

Consensus views emerge through universities, journals, lectureships and other meetings,[5] but since there is no official organ to sanction a particular view or institution, it is often unclear when consensus has been reached. Many members in Churches of Christ have an embedded suspicion of individuals who exercise significant influence beyond the ministries particular to their congregation; however, strong commitment to church life inspires members to work effectively from within their respective communities.

Established congregations are led by a plurality of elders who are responsible for the shepherding of the church.[6] While ministers also are responsible for pastoral care, any reference to the preacher as “pastor” or “reverend” or “ordained” would be seen as pretentious at best. Respect and ability of leaders to influence is earned within one’s local community and cannot be granted from an outside body.

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Mt. 28:18) and Christians are commanded to proclaim the authority of Christ to the world. Division among disciples means that Christ’s authority is not being recognized and is unacceptable (1 Cor. 12:12; Eph. 4:4). Unity is attained among believers by separating “essentials” from “non-essentials.” A church practice or belief not found to have biblical support through “command, principle, or necessary inference” is rejected.[7] While the primitivist commitment to a perceived single pattern of worship common to early Christian communities has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, the independence of local congregations has remained consistent. Congregations are influenced by informal networks with one another, but the local congregation remains the highest decision making body in the communion.

Individual congregations may align themselves with particular universities[8] or preacher training schools, but sympathies are not formally established. Care is taken to preserve the autonomy of the local congregation so that the university or para-church organization will not diminish the authority of the local congregation. The distrust of losing independence to institutions is demonstrated by a collection of congregations described as the “Non-Institutional Churches of Christ.” With more than 2,000 self-identified congregations in the United States, non-institutional congregations typically do not support para-church organizations larger than the local congregation. This would include cooperative church support for universities as well as orphanages, and evangelistic efforts. [9] These congregations believe that benevolent work and evangelism are to be done through the local congregation, but are not willing to cede control to a structure larger than the local church for such efforts. In addition to seeing para-church organizations as a step toward a non-Biblical hierarchical religious system, many suggest they are an attempt by the mainstream to receive legitimacy from the world.

A pivotal figure shaping Churches of Christ through the turn of the century was David Lipscomb, (1831-1917). Having lived through the Civil War in Tennessee, Lipscomb resented the American Christian Missionary Society for supporting the North, and came to believe that Christians should not go to war or participate in government. It would be foolish to collude with the kingdoms of the world since God is at work establishing his own kingdom and all other usurpers will be done away with. While Christians should work in the world, it is through the welcoming of the kingdom of God, rather than pronouncements and special commissions, that Christians promote alternatives to the world. John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine moved by the thought of Lipscomb write, “We believe the church should be that alternative. In the church we love our enemies. In the church we pray for those who would do us evil. In the church when we are insulted we seek reconciliation. In the church we seek the kingdom of God’s righteousness first.”[10]

Churches of Christ believe that God has spoken to the world through Scripture and we are called to confirm the power of the gospel by the way that we live with one another in community. Wherever there is disunity among Christ’s disciples the message of the gospel is impeded and the power of our proclamation stifled. While a significant degree of legalism and exclusivism remains to impede our ability to participate in most ecumenical efforts, our polity does not allow us to become insular toward our own denominational structures. We are free to proclaim the gospel of Christ to the world, without the entanglements of religious bureaucracy, and still enjoy a strong network of support among congregations.

[1] Thomas H. Olbricht, “Churches of Christ,” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, eds. Douglas A. Foster, Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 212. Worldwide membership exceeds 3,000,000.

[2] Alexander Campbell, “The Bible,” Millennial Harbinger 3, Extra 4 (6 August 1832), 24. “Yes, they are separate from one another, and live in different rows and lanes of the great city; but they all together, compose this great ecclesiastical establishment, properly enough called the kingdom of the clergy . . . Because they acknowledge their government, and are willing that they should rule over them.”

[3] Thomas Campbell, Prospectus of a Religious Reformation, (1829). Available at <http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/tcampbell/etc/PORR.HTM> “Is not the church of Christ upon earth essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those, in every place, that profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else, as none else can be truly and properly called Christians?”

[4] Alexander Campbell did however support the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS), centered in Cincinnati, OH in 1849 a source of contention from its inception.

[5] Olbricht, “Churches of Christ,” 213.

[6] With the exception of a very few congregations, public leadership roles are restricted to men. Other models for consensus leadership exist in some communities, but the biblical ideal of the elder led community is agreed upon.

[7] The absence of instrumental music in worship is among the most obvious examples of the prominence of the “argument from silence,” or the regulative principle in the churches.

[8] A few of the more prominent examples are Abilene Christian University, Harding University, Oklahoma Christian University, Lipscomb University, and Freed-Hardeman University. Pepperdine University also has connections with the Church of Christ heritage, though to a lesser degree.

[9] Many non-institutional congregations support Florida College, but the college accepts only contributions from individuals.

[10] John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine, Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding. (Abilene, TX: Leafwood, 2006), 160.

The Authority of the Church in the World: A United Church of Christ Perspective, Rev. Dr. Susan E. Davies