By Mark A. Taylor
The spirit of the day was one of inclusiveness. “Denominationalism is dead.” “Sectarianism is to be shunned.” “People today are more interested in Jesus than any human hierarchy or divisions.”
Hear, hear for the plea to be “Christians only.”
But this discussion was not just about whom to treat as Christians, but also about whom to include in one of “our” meetings. And here opinions were not as uniform.
If the meeting is by and for “us,” some wondered, shouldn”t those credentialed by the meeting planners be from among “us”?
Their question of “them” and “us” echoed in my mind as we finished this issue. Here we”re reporting on an enrollment trend among colleges and universities with deep roots in our movement. These schools””with trustees and faculty from Christian churches and churches of Christ, whose budgets are largely underwritten by those congregations””are enrolling more students from outside our movement than ever before. Indeed, our chart (below) shows some of “our” schools have more of “them” than “us” in their student body.
We report this trend not to propose that it is good or bad, but simply to help guarantee that it not go unnoticed. But it does prompt one opinion from me, especially as I think about all the parachurch ministries that have been spawned by Christian churches and churches of Christ.
If our churches do not support our institutions and ministries, those ministries will look elsewhere. If we will not send our students to our schools, those colleges will recruit students from a broader population. If we will not attend our conventions, or purchase from our publishing houses, or sponsor missions trips with our missionaries, then those ministries have only one of two choices: either fail or widen their appeal to attract other supporters.
Some will see this as good. Maybe the time for “our” ministries has passed. Maybe we should just dissolve any barriers that separate us from the wider world of Bible believers.
But many among us value the benefits of a tribe, and many feel at least some of our distinctives deserve not only to be preserved but preached. If that”s true, where shall we find the ties that bind our tribe together? And where will we educate the leaders to herald our heritage and values to the next generation? Where else but in “our” ministries, many of which are increasingly worried about how long they can survive without more of our money and our manpower?
I rejoice at the fact that we are seeing denominational lines fading but I am also very careful about believing that this is good for the church. Let me explain, if these lines are fading because people are seeking truth then I rejoice but if they are fading because many churches simply are removing the denominational names to appear as inter-denominational or non-denominational but still hold to the teachings of men then I do not think we have gained any ground. I fear in this age we simply have diluted and hid what we view may be offensive to others to simply gain the crowd. I hope I am wrong but so far I see more of a self-centerness behind this movement of denominational lines fading.
One example we might keep in mind is that of the school founded by Alexander Campbell. He did not intend to be educating preachers. His aim was to prepare Christian men and women to work in the world and honor Jesus as they did so. That school survives. If some of “our” schools are becoming more like his, that may be good if it truly results in more active Christians working in the world and serving in the kingdom of Christ. Intelligent persons may choose to learn godly truths and practice Christianity as they serve in various ways in the world we seek to bless and win to Christ. As a movement, we did very well when our preachers were not professional clergymen. Could we return to having elders as the teachers in our congregations and our evangelists seeking to start new churches rather than be employed as “pastors” by congregations already in existence? Is it an improvement when we train our youth to look for a job in our churches rather than serving while earning a living otherwise?
Thought-provoking comments by Ray, and a good article from Mark Taylor. Today “oneness” is often based upon the lowest common denominator we can agree upon. True oneness is a union in truth, not one of accommodation. I will always applaud my brothers and sisters who seek real biblical union, but who stop short of a spinster looking for anyone to marry!
Good start to, or perhaps continuation of, an important discussion but one that I have a hard time getting a handle on. I don’t know what it means to be “us” any more. Is there still an “us”? I had an idea of what that was when we were the Restoration Movement but when we became the Stone-Campbell Movement I became confused. The former was prescriptive of a direction we were heading and the latter, descriptive, of where we had been without pointing to where we were going. We can share a common past while heading in different directions in the present. It is the present and our future direction that makes us a tribe not the past. I am not saying that the older understand of “us” was perfect. It wasn’t. However, we had a sense of tribe that has now been lost but not replaced, at least not yet. A tribe with no distinctives ends up not being a tribe. As the ties that previous bound us break, we will not dissolve into the larger body of Christ but fragment and regather into new tribes. It is already happening. Perhaps that is what it means to dissolve. It is interesting to have lived long enough to experience a process that I read about then I was younger. Interesting but sad.