The hubbub (or is it a brouhaha? I get those confused) continues over the new directory of Churches of Christ that came out recently. One of the latest to condemn the directory was Victor Knowles, founder of Peace on Earth ministries, when he wrote about this in his latest Knowlesletter. [Which, by the way, seems to offer no way to respond online] When the compiler of the directory states that “The one unifying constant that defines whether or not such a congregation is included in this document is the practice of a cappella worship services,” Knowles jumps to the attack, saying that the one unifying constant should be our faith in Jesus as the Christ. Besides the fact that Knowles’ argument once again confuses inclusion in a directory of a cappella churches with a statement about fellowship, I also found several inconsistencies in his attack, not the least of which is the fact that directories of independent Christian churches don’t include every a cappella church in their lists! (one of the reasons why Mac Lynn started his directory in the first place). Does anyone know of a directory that attempts to list all congregations that Knowles would consider to be part of the Lord’s body?
What really jumped out to me were these words on Page 2 of the Knowlesletter: “The lastest report to come to us from our churches in Cuba tells us…” Our churches? As Knowles talks about the churches all being house churches that are not recognized by the government, he makes it clear that “our churches” doesn’t include the many a cappella churches of Christ on that island, since they enjoy full legal recognition. Let me point out, I have nothing against these house churches; I’ve met some of the members and even baptized some of them myself. We have enjoyed times of fellowship, and I fully consider them to be my brothers. But with Knowles’ views on church unity, how can he support the continued existence of these groups? (By support, I include financial support, since he asks for money for them) There are legal churches on the island; why encourage these people to continue to defy the government by meeting illegally? If Knowles truly believes that there is no real difference between the independent Christian churches and the churches of Christ, he should immediately cease financial support for these illegal groups and encourage the Christians to meet with their brothers that have full recognition.
Or is this talk of unity just that? Talk. Kind of makes you wonder.
[You might like to read Steve Ridgell’s latest comments on the directory]
“Kind of makes you wonder.”
“he should immediately cease financial support for these illegal groups and encourage the Christians to meet with their brothers that have full recognition.”
(illegal church. recognized by who) we might be misunderstanding just what church unity means, if we had to all meet at the same place, to be unified, man that would be some gathering.
for someone who says he is not a citizen of this world, you sure have a lot of respect for laws which restrict, where and how Christians can worship.
“why encourage these people to continue to defy the government by meeting illegally?”
I must be one of those illegal Christians as well, I don’t want my government telling me where to worship. and I don’t want some church group telling me I can’t use a bugle, and drums, if I want to.
sure the directory intended to punish those who practiced their freedoms in worship. and the conservative a Capella churches are the ones standing in the way of unity.Why do you think the list only includes a Capella churches, so others would be excluded. when only one group is included, it stands to reason they are excluding ever one else.
Actually, when the directory began, there were 3 groups in the Restoration Movement: Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian churches, and the Churches of Christ. The other two groups had directories, and Mac Lynn decided to create one for the group he was a member of. Since some of the Independent Christian Churches also use the nomenclature Church of Christ, the directory, since its inception, has referred to itself as a listing of a cappella Churches of Christ.
As for the other, as an ambassador of the kingdom of God, I am to respect the laws of my host country unless they violate the norms of my kingdom. I have never stated otherwise.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, with MUCH MUCH respect, I have noticed you have been very busy defending 21st Century’s decision wherever it is mentioned in blog world. So I know this is a passionate interest of yours.
But there is no denying that this was an intentional act of disfellowship – even if Royster attempts to dismiss that. For one, there are churches listed that use instrumental music in some services. For two, RHCoC is not completely instrumental. But most importantly, RHCoC is still a ‘Church of Christ’ (denominationally used phrase). They have not decided to be a Christian Church (again, denominationally speaking). And that, to me, is the rub. Those Churches of Christ and Christian Churches associated with the “Christian Church” (all this terminology – ugh) … have a directory, true. But that directory does not include Richland Hills … because they are a Church of Christ (our tribe).
To leave them out is to indicate that they no longer are a part of our tribe – a decision made by an editor, not by the church themselves. And that is what is so unhappy about this situation… it is a judgment against RH.
As many have said, a designation could have been created to show that some services are not acappella. That would have been very easy.
Someone (Royster or someone else) decided that RH is no longer a Church of Christ because they use the instrument at some services. That is the plain truth.
So even though I trust your judgment, respect your work, love your heart … I totally disagree with you on this matter. Of course you’re still in my circle and in my book and I love you!
As for Knowles, a good brother, he stumbles as do we all … as long as these lines exist (which I hate) … in how to express these things consistently. But he is a Christian Church guy who is writing to a mostly Christian Church audience.
And Royster’s book is a Church of Christ book about Church of Christ people. That is why it is unconscionable (even if I can’t spell it) to leave RHCoC out.
Sorry to hijack your comments with this long and boisterous comment!
But John, what about the issues I raised? It’s one thing for a member of the church of Christ to object to this, it’s another for Knowles to react as he did.
First, his misuse of the editor’s comments is unconscionable.
Second, the glaring inconsistency of implying that the directory should list all churches while his group does not do the same is outrageous. Let POEM publish a directory that lists all of “our churches” (however you define that), then he can point a finger.
Third, you seem to focus on the directory… what about POEM’s support of division in Cuba?
One more thing…
Why is it not wrong for “their tribe” to not include us? Knowles should be correcting the errors in his own group before pointing the finger at others.
Grace and peace,
Tim
1) Inclusion in a directory is typically not initiated by the directory — they have far too small a staff to search out new congregations, etc. Inclusion is typically initiated by a congregation that finds that they are not being listed. Now Tim, how many a cappella congregations do you really think are asking to be included in CC/CoC directories? Be realistic.
2) It *is* bizarre that Knowles would try and get a dog into this fight. I’m not sure where he is coming from. But I do believe that “their” directories would accept and list any of “our” congregations that asked to be listed there. Because again, there are two lines to be considered — who the directory wants to list (as Royster and Lynn have shown us) *and* who wants to be listed.
3) About division in Cuba, I hesitate to weigh in at all, because I seriously lack information. I’m sure the instrument plays a part, as does the difference between practicing a “legal religion” and an illegal one. I have to admit that I’d probably go for the illegal option myself. The farther apart I can pry government and religion, the happier I’ll be, I think. So while I fully admit to being QUITE ignorant on the matter, I don’t think solving the unity issue is as simple as, “Come to the church that the government says is good for you.”
Nick:
1) That point is valid today, but we have to remember that the directory was begun at a time when the groups mutually excluded one another. Part of the problem is, this directory is now an anachronism. It continues out of inertia and nothing more. Internet directories have made it more than obsolete.
2) My view is that this directory is an easy target, which is why most people have dogpiled it. It makes you seem cool and hip and part of the enlightened group to criticize something like this. I’m sure I do the same in other instances. I just think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
3) I still think this is a time when Christians can give a better witness by submitting to the government on this point. Even if we set this aside, why promote continued division on the mission field while preaching unity here at home? I much prefer the model used in Brazil, where the independent Christian churches have focused on one area and the churches of Christ another. Why set up “competition” if we truly believe that we are brothers? That’s the irony I see.
Competition is the death-knell for unity. I fully believe that, and I think that was Paul’s real impetus for wanting to go places no one had been before.
I agree that the directory’s decision has been blown out of proportion, but John’s thesis statement is still true — “Someone (Royster or someone else) decided that RH is no longer a Church of Christ because they use the instrument at some services. That is the plain truth.”
There are internet directories?
Nick,
I don’t agree with John’s thesis statement. We have to remember, we have no idea what went on behind the scenes here. There is lots of speculation about motives, but I’m not sure how these people can know beyond what Royster himself has said.
What we know is they decided that RH is no longer an a cappella Church of Christ. That’s all we can be sure of. Anything else requires:
(a) Access to memos, meeting notes, etc. that are not available to the general public.
(b) Supernatural insight into the actual motives of the editors.
Since I possess neither of the above, I would not care to sin by presuming to judge their motives.
Grace and peace,
Tim
“I much prefer the model used in Brazil, where the independent Christian churches have focused on one area and the churches of Christ another.”
OK do we flip a coin, or does the government get to choose?
Do we divide it up state by state, county by county, city by city, do we get the flatland and give them the mountains, mountains are rougher traveling. I like the flatland especially if I’m walking. how would this work Tim ? How about just declaring a two block radius around our building off limits. and theirs too naturally.
The list was wrong, and a mistake, but if people let it, it will die down, and surely be forgotten.
One more thing Tim, and I am off your case. That statement about the way Brazil does things , seems to indicate you prefer division over unity. I hope not.
Tim, I’d like to engage a few thoughts about your response to my comment.
Knowles commonly writes about and moves within Church of Christ circles. He is a mainstay at the Unity Meetings that used to be held. He has spoken at Tulsa Workshop and other places. He’s demonstrated love and interest in churches of Christ. I think he writes from a unique perspective. He has tried to find healing while each side maintains its unique characteristics.
I agree that Knowles’ statement about Jesus being the center of unity was true, but ambiguous in the context of the directory. At the same time, “one unifying factor” is also pretty strong restoration language that was out of place in the directory.
I’m not sure Knowles wants a directory with all Churches of Christ / Christian Churches in one book so much as he thinks that all Churches of Christ (us) should be in the same book. In Whose directory do YOU think RHCoC should be listed? I wonder if there were any acappella Christian Churches if they would continue to be listed in their directory(s)?
I take no issue with his Cuba statement and do not regard it as supporting division. Every house church has potential to reach some that the others are not reaching. Why is this a problem? They are “their churches” as we all regard things. This is no different than there being 500 churches of Christ in Nashville, some of whom use “us” and “them” nomenclature about other churches of Christ.
Knowles points out this situation because it is a true reflection of the troubling times in our church. I do not think it was just a little cut and dry thing … and if that makes me guilty of the sin of presumption, I pray to be forgiven. However, the name was there… now it’s not … others survived though they do the same thing (with a lot of publicity in one case) … so there is every appearance of an intentional way to thump RHCoC. How can there NOT be? They still offer acappella services! They are still a church of Christ!
One writer lamented that RHCoC had left themselves out in no man’s land, belonging to no one’s group. What silliness. If they are “out” it is at the hands of those who put them “out” by the gavel of judgment.
Unless of Course acappella singing is not only the one unifying element of the directory, but of the kingdom of God. And perhaps that is where we’re going.
John,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I still disagree, though I think if you search the discussions over the last few weeks, you’ll find that I’ve been absent from most since the first couple of days. I found Knowles’ comments to be inappropriate, and his comments about “our churches” in Cuba to be extremely ironic given the circumstances.
I think Richland Hills should be listed where they’ve always been. I think the editors made a mistake. If you’ll look at my quote in the Christian Chronicle, I think you’ll see that I’ve said that all along. What I have objected to from the beginning is people ascribing unholy motives to what was done.
I also recognize that theirs was a no-win situation. What if they had created an “instrumental” designation? Now how do they justify leaving out all of the NACC churches that use the name Church of Christ? Historically, they have been able to say, “This is a non-instrumental directory, so they don’t fit.” Would they then have to begin including all those churches? If not, would they be accused of sectarianism for leaving them out?
Let’s show some charity here. The unifying element of the directory was/is the refusal to use instruments. As for other congregations being included, that very well could have been a mistake. As Nick pointed out, these people have a small staff. I can point out LOTS of mistakes they’ve made over the years. Look at the attendance figures listed for the Highland church in Abilene. It’s been years since they had that many on Sundays. (Funny that Cope didn’t complain about that!)
Anyway, I do appreciate the interaction. Considerate, thoughtful debate is always welcome here. And I really appreciate you and all that you do. Wish I could be in Tulsa this year to meet you.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I am coming into this discussion after reading all the other comments, to make my small point about any directory. A directory is usually made so people of like companies, beliefs or interests will be able to find another group of the same interests. That is what this directory is intended to do: give those of us who travel a starting point in deciding where we will stop for worship on Sunday or have fellowship any day of the week. If there were no distinctions, it would really have no function. Of course, this is only my opinion, and does not indicate a desire to argue about any of the points mentioned above.
Maybe someone with computer savvy should put the directories of all these churches, instrumental and a cappella, online, in one place. It probably wouldn’t end the dispute, because I suspect that the hostilities at their core aren’t really about the proper ways to praise God with beautiful music. But it seems to me that it would be the right thing to do anyway.
Personally, I turn to a directory because I want to learn all the details about a church before I attend. You know — things like “Meets in Metroplex, Texas, in a building that looks like the Astrodome,” or “has a Bible study at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesdays.” Now as you know Tim, I live in Princeton, NJ, so it’s good to know if a church meets in Texas before I try to attend. And I get done with work at 6:30, so it’s important to know when a Bible study meets, especially if it’s in Irving, and the brothers operate on Central Time.
And I like a cappella services, so I want to know if a church has them. I’d gladly visit a church with instrumental music if the love of Christ is there, but a cappella singing was a big reason I fell in love with the so-called non-denominational Churches of Christ about 20 years ago, and I think I’d miss it if my church changed its format. Still, if the elders at Princeton declared, “It’s time to break out the banjos and zithers and make a joyful noise,” I’d probably buy a tuba and learn to play the bass lines. A few crucial things are worth disputing in a group of loving believers. Most aren’t.
I strongly suspect that music isn’t the main thing driving this dispute. Most likely, it’s about feelings hurt long ago, carefully nutured grudges and the desire to best “opponents” in church leadership.
Are there “opponents,” or only brothers and sisters, in the church? Sounds like Satan messing with us to me.
So maybe somebody should put a big directory of all churches involved in this dispute on the Internet and call it the “Jesus Saves and Satan Can Pound Sand” directory.
“Jesus Saves and Satan Can Pound Sand” directory — sounds like you’ve got a new project to work on!
Seriously, we spend a lot of time on a regular basis trying to locate churches in different areas. (I’m looking for a Spanish-speaking church in Holland right now… and may have found one) If we don’t know anyone in the area, then Google is our best friend. The online church directories are next, although they tend to be woefully out-of-date (almost all of the e-mails I’ve tried are nonexistent). Printed directories are a last resort.
As for the history of the issue, I’m more than convinced that the whole music thing did not start out over doctrine. It was a regional split following the Civil War, just like so many religious groups experienced.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, enjoyed the interaction … my admiration for you and your work remains brother! God bless you richly!
I like the idea of a directory listing all of the independent Christian Churches and a cappella Churches of Christ.
“The unifying element of the directory was/is the refusal to use instruments.”
That’s *not* the quote in the directory. That *is* the unwritten interpretation of the quote, but the quote itself speaks of maintaining our tradition of a cappella worship.
Why? Because “We refuse to include congregations that use instruments in any worship service” sounds mean and isn’t good for business.
RH maintains the tradition of a cappella worship. While there is nothing stopping the editors of the directory from removing a congregation for *any* reason (as you’ve said, it is *their* directory, not ours) — they have not defended themselves with that prerogative, but by pointing to the explanation of identity in the front of the directory. Since that expression does not exclude RH, their argument is not sound.
If they didn’t know the argument was unsound, they should retract it now and make a different one, or put RH, et al, back in.
If they knew the argument was unsound, we have a different discussion before us.