The Modern Church

As a new-comer to the churches of Christ I find some of the lingo a little perplexing. I assume by "New Testament churches" you are referring to churches that use a modern empirical reading of scripture to answer the question of how we should worship. That is, a reading of scripture influenced by secular and scientific notions of truth.

Assuming we can ignore for a moment the straw man caricature of other churches enjoining entertainment, sophistry, and other obvious liberalisms; I wonder if we can take an honest look at the tradition of the churches of Christ to see her place in this same liberal tradition—politically (autonomy), epistemologically (scientific rationalism (Bacon)), and historically (against tradition—a priori).

I say this asking for clarity on what we are to be faithful to in every generation? Sometimes it seems like the answer to this question is to a mechanical pattern of church adhering to a reductionistic reading of scripture.

To clarify—I disagree that most people leave the coC because it is not modern enough. No; instead they leave because it is modern, all too modern. While the coC rightly starts at the bible to answer questions about God and church, it filters the biblical facts through a grid that is anything but first century. The coC method of interpretation is heavily indebted to the modern era.

So, reading the bible like an astronomer we can make out our modern constellations of biblical propositions. Using the "law of non-contradiction" to speak were revelation is silent we use (Eph. 5:18-19) to tell us to sing only—an amusing mistake. We then use a verse (1 Cor. 13:8-10) about the supremacy of love to proof-text our empirical ideas about signs and wonders—again, amusing in this age of the miraculous. 1 Cor. 14:34, however, I fully agree with—women should be silent, mouths agape, as what the men usually do in the 1 hour on Sunday morning is neither spiritual nor leadership—passing around the emblems of crackers and grape juice that at best reminds us of the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

The church of Christ is a beautiful church. I look forward to people continuing in what they are doing because it is a beautiful tradition—and to stop defining themselves by what they are not.

Ryan, you assume that we read the scriptures using a modern empirical approach thus creating your own straw man to deride in the rest of your comments.
Every reading of scripture is influenced by some type of thinking. I begin with the assumption that the writers of the New Testament were themselves rational and attempting to communicate information that was understandable to their readers – all guided by the Spirit of God.
The tradition that you describe as "liberal" that includes rational thinking, autonomous congregational structures, and eschewing traditions not sanctioned by God in His word were all in place in apostolic times. To be faithful in every generation is to hold to these basic elements present in the church of the 1st century. This is not liberalism, this is history!
I agree that the "church of Christ" as an historical movement owes much to the so called Restoration movement of the 18th-19th centuries and early leaders like Alexander Campbell and others who called on Christians of that era to do away with man - made traditions and use only the Scriptures in matters of faith and worship. But their hermeneutical approach was in the service of Scripture and not the other way around. Their work led to the thousands of congregations around the world who, today, pursue a simple faith using only the Scriptures to continually refine their understanding and practice to resemble the spirit and form of the church described in the pages of the N.T. This is a method that is fully anointed by the very Spirit of God in that Word. (Mt.28:20; Acts 2:42)
Of course your own religious predispositions show through in your comments about miracles in the modern age, music in the church, and the use of the term "Eucharist", etc. Time and space preclude me from expanding on these ideas, but let me just say that your mocking of the idea of the use of only vocal music in N.T. worship demonstrates that you are truly a new-comer to what New Testament Christianity is really like. I suggest you examine the history of church music and you will quickly note the exclusive presence of a cappella music in the church for at least the 1st 1000 years of Christianity.
In closing, let me say that I hope you are searching to find and practice a Christian faith in keeping with the teachings and examples of Jesus and His Apostles as this is what we are attempting to do as well and we extend the right hand of fellowship to all who do.

Mike,

Thank you for your gracious reply to my pretentious comments. I see, though, and surely due to my ill-tempered language, that the heart of what I said was not heard. I should know by now that comments like mine never get people to see their situated-ness—their a-critically held presuppositions.
May God bless you in your work—I know you have invested much into your ministry, and that you sincerely care for those you serve.
I too will extend the right hand to others trying their best to follow Jesus—even those who have lost the plot and have trailed off into their not-so-necessary biblical inferences.

May the restoration continue—going beyond restoring the bible as the source for all truth and practice, but even to restore us to asking biblical questions and to using biblical hermeneutics. Then we as a church would not be so modern, all too modern.

Ryan, Thanks for your reply. I suppose the basic questions that I grapple with from my study of the Bible are the following:
Who is Jesus ? How are we saved? How do I love my neighbour? The continual mining of these essential questions leads me into the knowledge of God, myself as a person, and the true working out of my faith in Christ.
Again, my approach to actual study, worship, actualizing the concepts of Scripture are in service to these things and not an end to themselves. I don't doubt that others may be wrestling with the same issues but I choose to remain within my own fellowship of believers because our approach has initially brought me to faith in Christ and continues to nourish and challenge that faith.
I also believe that an attempt to maintain a framework for studying the Bible doesn't necessarily preclude one from discerning its truths so long as the "system" is in pursuit of truth and not in service of perpetuating itself. Some "systems" for study are more profitable than others. In the end, however, the proof will be seen in the fruit they each bear. I am hoping that we are building with those materials that will stand the Judgement day where Paul says,
"...the fire will show if a person's work has any value." (1Cor.3:13b)

Agreed. It is a shame when people leave a community—especially when it appears to fail in meeting perceived needs or in "getting with the times". Such an action belies the all too common occurrence of a narcissistic faith. People should note and realize that the churches of Christ have at least two vitally important things going for it as a church—a genuine value and practice for real community (as opposed to the pseudo-community of the seeker-sensitive crowd) and a high value placed on truth. It is with these two values, laid on the firm foundations of the bible, that this church stands against the various winds of our age. That being said, and in the spirit of being true to our value on truth, our relationship to a Lockean epistemology and the use of Baconian induction with scripture should see some careful discernment. It is not that there is no value in these methods—but that in respect for the authority of scripture they themselves should be weighed carefully under the light of God's word.

May the restoration continue...