Church Plants, Doctrine, and Fellowship
Hello all:
What I’m currently reading and viewing:
Post Modern Christian - the Blog of Gabe Peterson.
Christ Journey Church, Fort Worth, TX.
Mission Alive, a church planting ministry.
Christ Journey Adventures - the blog of Chris and Heidi Chappotin.
That’s more than enough links and things to look at in one post…
I was checking out Gabe Peterson’s blog when I found reference to a church plant that he had just visited. I checked out the link to the church website, and I wasn’t exactly sure what kind of church I had found.
I saw pictures of a baptism, and pictures of the Lord’s Supper being taken. I also saw pictures of electric guitars inside the church.
I also saw that the majority of the staff were graduates of Abeline Christian University, but that one had graduated from a Baptist college and another from an Assemblies of God school…
So then, I wondered, was this group affiliated with the churches of Christ, or the Independent Christian Churches? Or was this church completely independent and separate from any type of Christian fellowship?
I remembered that Gabe had mentioned that this church was planted by Mission Alive, a group he had interned with…so I checked out Mission Alive and after a little digging found that it affiliates itself with churches of Christ… and then found its information page on Christ Journey, which states that Christ Journey is a church of Christ.
The information page goes on to say:
“This church is firmly rooted in the Stone-Campbell heritage. To heighten their effectiveness, both Chris and Heidi are beginning a Masters in Christian Ministry degree through Abilene Christian University by taking a few courses each year. They believe in the priesthood of all believers and implement this practice in their churches. They believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are central to a Christian worldview. As believers, they worship God who sent Christ to die for us as remembered in the Lord’s Supper and understand that baptism is our participation in his death, burial, and resurrection.
Chris and Heidi have been married eight years. When they were married, Heidi became a Chappotin but did not cease being a Toole. She is, although of a new generation, very close to her parents, uncles and aunts, and grandparents. Likewise, Christ Journey has no desire to give up her relationship with her spiritual parents, uncles and aunts, and grandparents in the faith.”
Those are interesting quotes. Its very obvious that Mission Alive wants to let every one know that this church is a church of Christ….
Also in the article are references to a church of Christ which has financially supported this new church plant.
So…. questions I have for this post:
Can a church be instrumental and still be affiliated with the churches of Christ? Or, is this church more affiliated with independent Christian churches and churches of Christ? Or, should it be if it is not?
How does the use of instruments of music affect fellowship for this congregation with others? I would assume that the independent Christian churches would greet this congregation with open arms…. but what about churches of Christ?
Do other congregations know that Christ Journey uses instruments in worship?
I notice that while Mission Alive goes out if its way to paint Christ Journey as a church of Christ, there is no mention of this affiliation on the Christ Journey website. Was this an oversight, or was this done intentionally? If so, why?
DISCLAIMERS:
Okay, before the mud starts flying…a few statements I have to make:
I’m not attacking Christ Journey’s use of instrumental music. There are previous posts that I have written where you can read about my views of instrumental music.
I’m not very interested in having an argument about whether or not the use instrumental music is sinful or not. That being said, I’m not going to declare that off-topic…. I’m just letting you all know that that is not my intention for this post.
What I want to know is how this point of doctrine affects this congregations relationship with other churches. I’m interested in the dynamics of the fellowship that this church shares with others.
Lastly, I want to mention how moving it was to read about the accomplishments that this congregation has achieved so far. I hope that their good work continues.
Now…all of that being said, I hope that we can have a discussion on these issues. If you have an opinion on the questions I asked above, I want to hear them…so please, comment. I look forward to a good discussion.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
October 20th, 2005 at 12:25
Clark, thanks for the links and the comment. I’ve only occasionally visited your blog, so I don’t know all your opinions on ‘the issues.’ I passed your post on to both Chris Chappotin (church-planter of Christ Journey) and Gailyn Van Rheenen (director of Mission Alive and former African missionary and professor at ACU) – you might here from them.
I certainly understand the tension in your post and I know I’ve personally wrestled with it and know that GVR and Chris have also personally wrestle with it.
Essentially your are asking questions, “What is a (C/c)hurch of Christ?” “How important is acapella singing, or the non-use of instruments in the worship assembly, to the identity of the group known as Churches of Christ?” and “What is necessary for churches to have unity/fellowship with each other and what are the boundaries of fellowship?” — at least that is what I’m seen from your post.
While, I can only speak for myself (and not GVR or Chris), I think these questions are profound and worth asking. However, at the same time it seems they are ultimately unanswerable because of the diverse and fragmentary nature of the Stone-Campbell movement, particularly Churches of Christ. A brief survey of you blog illustrates you certainly understand this.
Furthermore, as a brief survey of my blog would illustrate, I buy the notion that America is what I would call post-denominational. Built into that word is the assumption that we can never stand outside our culture (like our movement’s best rheotic tries to do — “We are just Christians. We just use the Bible. We have not been influenced by our culture – Lockean Common Sense realism, frontier revivalism, 1950’s top-down management/miltary model, etc.”). That is why I think non-denominational Christianity is a myth, albeit it a nice one that is attractive to us ahistorical Americans. The church always has a context and culture in which it exists. Realizing this is big step, and then we ask what is the context of the church in 21st century American culture, and what is God doing to re-deem the world in this cultural context and how can we partner with Him?
So what does a post-denominational church look like and behave like? Well I think Christ journey is a good example. It has a heritage. It affirms that heritage and realizes that heritage has shaped it (particularly the church planters). But it also realizes that it’s heritage has weaknesses and we can learn from other Christian heritages seek move beyond denominational identity and find identity in the mission of God – exactly what GOCN conference I’m at now is dealing with.
Still, I think the ‘music’ question is worth asking. I would also add, I think it’s important to seek to understand why we don’t use instruments (historically anyway), hold that in light of scripture, and ask how core this ‘doctrine’ is theologically when considered in reference to things like mission, the incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection.
October 20th, 2005 at 12:31
I appreciate your comments on this. Personally, if I were to plant a church (which I am not), I would want to make it clear that we were situated within Churches of Christ. I am proud of my tradition and, though I know there is baggage carried by the name “Church of Christ”, I still think a church would have more to gain than to loose by using the name. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.
Also, I would plant an acapella church, though I don’t think using instrumental music is wrong. I think there is beauty in acapella music, and it is a part of our tradition that should be appreciated and enjoyed. Besides, I do think that by using instruments primarily, you will cut off yourself from the rest of Churches of Christ.
While I respect the desire of many church planters to reach many people, I don’t think the best way to do this is to jettison our tradition. Churches of Christ need people to plant open-minded churches, active in evangelism and social justice, yet still holding onto many of the positive traditions of our fellowship. But that’s just me. I can see the benefits of what Heidi and Chris are doing, believe they have every right to do it, believe what they are doing is perfectly okay, but, personally, I would not want to do it that way.
October 20th, 2005 at 16:55
Travis:
Thanks for your comments. I’m hoping to hear from the planters themselves to get their take on it and see what the reaction has been.
I’m curious, what do you think of the Preston Road church of Christ backing them financially… Do you think that this will be a new trend, that musical instruments won’t stand in the way of fellowship and financial support, or do you think this is just going to be an isolated situation?
-Clarke
October 20th, 2005 at 17:11
Gabe:
Thanks for replying. I was hoping to keep tension out of my post, but it doesn’t quite look like I succeeded. It is hard to do considering the issues, though.
You’ve pretty much pegged my questions on the nose. While I am quite aware of what the answer was in the past, I’m wondering how much of a shift has occured in actuality and not just in academic conversations and circles. They say that where there is smoke, there is fire. There has been a lot of smoke recently.
I’ll expand on these comments later, I have to go….Sorry about that…I thought I was going to have more time earlier…
I’m adding this after more comments came in, so it will be a bit out of order….. you’re comments didn’t come off arrogant to me at all and there is no need to apologize. I’m definatly looking for comments and questions and thoughts from others and I welcome yours.
As far as “post-denominational,” I haven’t really followed that argument or many of the other things I hear often about post-modernism….. mostly because I see very little in the way of “post-modern culture” here in Portland….which is one of the more liberal cities in the US. I do see a little bit of pluralism and the belief that “many truths exist and are equally valid,” but really I don’t hear very much of that.
But, as far as music and other doctrinal questions, I’d like to hear what others from all over think….. I want to expand on my thoughts even more, and address your other comment, but my son desperatly needs to be put to bed. I’ll attempt to get back either later tonight or tomorrow.
-Clarke
October 20th, 2005 at 20:22
Clarke,
I browsed through your blog this afternoon after I worked some more on the paper I’m writing (due Monday). I hope my comment didn’t come off as arrogant.
The Stone-Campbell Restoration movement and the groups it has spawned are interesting groups. While Travis and my interpretation of the movement may differ at times, I, like him, (and I hope this comes through in my blog) very much want to affirm alot of what the Restoration ideal is about. Though I may quibble with how we define ‘restoration.’
I think particually, Churches of Christ and the church of Christ bring alot of to table in the current cultural situation. One of the biggest strenghs, I would agrue, is our urge to just be Christians and a church that continually seeking to be restored by Christ, through Christ and for Christ (i.e. ecclessiology is an on-going process of transformation). What we’ve lacked in the past is any awareness of culture or how we relate to, read and function in culture. Our stand defenitions assume context and culture. I think we need to re-question these notions.
Since I know Chris and Heidi and their situation, I think my next statement is fair. They did not go in seeking to plant an acappella church or an instrumental church. They sought to partner with God in planting a church and letting their worship forms emerge from their community. In their opening service we worshiped in both acappella forms as well as with instruments. They did and are not making a disction one way or another. They are a church that worship God in appropriate forms for thier community.
I guess my question after Travis’s comment, is when considering mission and partnering with God on His mission to redeem creation through his new creation (the incaration), and when new people are redeemed and enter into the Lord’s church, are we bringing them into one traditonal (say acappella music) form and forcing that form upon them, or are we allowing new worship forms to emerge out of the new creation (which is what happened in the Chappotin’s church). My pratical question to Travis’s hypothetical is what happens when people come into your planted church that worships without instruments and Joe, our new convert, wants share his gift of guitar playing during worship. Are you gonna say No you can’t share your gift of guitar playing in worship because our tradition is an acappella one and we don’t do guitar playing?
My point is when considering church planting we are considering the mission of God and how our tradition fits into His mission, and not how the Mission of God fits into our tradition. Put more succinctly, I’m arguing that mission and missiology supercede tradition and historical theology. Scary stuff….
October 20th, 2005 at 20:28
Sorry if I sounded zealous in my last post. I guess I’m a missionary at heart.
Plus, I just got done listening to great presentation on at GOCN about just this sort of thing.
October 21st, 2005 at 12:52
Sorry, Clarke, but I’ve got another long comment. Good discussion by the way.
Gabe, your practical question reminds me of an actual event that happened in one of our churches in the 70s. Don Finto told me this story about the, then, Belmont Ave. Church of Christ in Nashville, TN. On one Sunday, a young girl asked the elders of the church if she could share a song she wrote with the church. They were open to women singing in the church, so they obliged. What they didn’t realize was that this young girl would perform her song using her guitar, which was the first time a guitar had ever been used in their worship. Needless to say, this girl’s song (her name was Amy Grant, by the way) stirred things up in the church, but it was one of the first moves that led that church in a direction far from Churches of Christ. Today, the Belmont Church has no affiliation whatsoever with Churches of Christ (other than they have many members who came from Churches of Christ and their old building still has “Church of Christ” etched into the granite). They are a powerful, Charismatic church in downtown Nashville that has done much for Christian music and for the poor of Nashville. I don’t know the point of my story, but there you go.
In other news, I like the suggestion that mission and missiology might supercede tradition and historical theology, but I need to live with it for a while. My first inclination, though, is to say that the mission of the church should be birthed from her history and theology. History and theology should drive mission. Yes, I believe there are times when the Church must rethink their mission, and even go against their tradition. For instance, I am in favor of doing this when it comes to the role of women in the church. And, I realize that such a practice (having women in prominent leadership roles in the church) would distance one’s congregation from many churches. But even so, when our traditions are rethought, I think it must be done by a reexamination of our history and theology, not by simply superceded them as if they don’t matter (which I don’t think you, Gabe, the history-boy, would be in favor of). Our impetus for any changes in the church should not simply be current fads or preferences, but a discernment of the will of the Holy Spirit, whom I believe works through the local church but also through Holy Scripture and Church History and Theology. I realize that is a loaded sentence, but I don’t feel like unpacking it right now.
Let me continue my ramblings. I like acapella music, believe it is a part of our tradition that should be affirmed, and yet I would not die for such a tradition. If need be, I’d probably go along with using instrumental music if that was the worship style birthed from the community, as you describe. But if my congregation chose to do that, I would still want to make sure that we were identified within Churches of Christ. Many church plants often do innovative things within their fellowships that would greatly benefit the larger fellowship of Churches of Christ. But when the choose to unidentify themselves with our fellowship (and I’m not saying this is what Chris and Heidi and GVR are doing), they isolate themselves from having a big impact on our churches. Even though I like acapella music, I also think it would do Churches of Christ good if we had a couple fully instrumental churches as well. Maybe I am duplicitous, I don’t know.
As for the “post-denominational” theory, I’ve heard a lot about it, but I really don’t by it. Maybe I do not understand what you and others mean by “post-denominational”.
I guess I need more proof. I have yet to really see any denominations failing. They are everywhere and many are growing. Many, like me, who have grown up in a “non-denominational church” (if that is possible), long for more denominational structure. Here’s my assessment of our current cultural situation. I think we are in a time of trans-denominationalism. Our denominations are still present and in tact, but many are loosing their strict loyalty to one particular group. For instance, I love Churches of Christ, believe there is much in our tradition that is good and pure, but there is much I believe I need to learn from the Episcopalians, the Orthodox, the Catholics, the Methodists, and even, *gasp* the Baptists. I will remain a member of Churches of Christ, but I am willing to learn from other traditions and maybe even incorporate some of their practices into my own life.
With that said, I realize that there are some who want nothing to do with denominations. But I don’t think that number is big enough to declare we are in an age of post-denominationalism or to even predict the future demise of denominations. I think the shape of denominations will change, and are changing, but they are here to stay (at least until long after we die). But, what is a historian-in-training doing speculating about the future.
October 21st, 2005 at 16:56
Gabe:
Interesting that they didn’t have intent to go one way or another with their music…. good to know. I still though, want to know how this has effected their fellowship with other churches - either churches of Christ or maybe the Independent Christian Churches… did your friends have any interest in getting on and joining the conversation?
Travis:
No problem about the long comment…. I just have a hard time replying to everything wheen they are long, whether I agree or disagree… interesting story about Amy Grant, though. I had heard that she was a member of the church, but didn’t know anything more than that.
As far as the mission of the church, I personally feel that whether or not we use a capella music or not should not interfear with the mission of the church at all… I, like you Travis, love a capella music, and think that we should affirm it. While I don’t think it necessarily wrong to use instruments to worship the Lord, I think that we most likely got it right in this regard, and that we should stick to being a capella. However, I would not stand in the way of a church using instruments. The Northwest Church of Christ in Seattle is a merged church…it being merged from both an independent Christian Church and an a capella church of Christ. They hold two services so that people can be in their comfort zone, but it has definatly had an impact on what type of a church they are….and, they have the benefit of fellowshipping with both churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches, from what I have read.
Gabe: As far as your question about the gifted brother with the guitar, I think that answer depends on members of the church, not necessarily because of the tradition. I grew up in both the non-institutional (anti’s) churches of Christ and the mainline congregations… and the biggest problem I saw is when a church would divide and break up because of something that was a non-essential….while I understand that many people who aren’t bothered by some things think that those things should be implemented and that those that feel otherwise are either foolish or need more convincing, I think it is we that need to be catious and keep from offending our wearker brothers conscience. That, I think is an unacceptable risk….
-Clarke
October 21st, 2005 at 19:27
Brothers,
I’m actually gonna a respond to this over at my blog in my reflection on today’s GOCN. I really think the begs to the quesiton of idenity and where we draw indentity.
Two quick responses though: One, no, I don’t think we a can stand outside of history when doing reflection — we are our stories. Two, yea I’d heard the Amy Grant and Belmont story before. I think they would be an interesting historical and cultural study. Here’s another interesting tid-bit…when was Chris Smith, who is now the preaching minister at Harpeth Hills in Nashville, was student body at president at Lipscomb in the early 80’s, he had pass on bring Amy Grant to campus for entertainment, but could bring a secular band (if I remember right).
Thanks for the dialogue.