Hello all:
Shortly after we moved into our home, we saw a sign pop up in storefront window at a shopping center down the street that said “The Church of Christ meets here.” I would assume everyone has seen this sign before…the old rickety wooden sign that looks like its about 40 or 50 years old…
So, once this sign popped up, I was curious who this group was. No one where we were going knew anything about them. I dropped by several times and didn’t find anyone around, but I did find some course outlines and such they kept in a box attached to the door.
I was looking online and found out they have a website. The congregation is listed in a non-institutional church web directory. Mystery solved, or so I thought.
I was talking to a friend the other day that we go to church with, who, like me, was once a member of a non-institutional church. He knew about the congregation up the street. Not only are they non-institutional, but they are a “one covenant” congregation. My friend explained to me that this congregation’s members had been a part of another congregation, but that they had been forced out because they taught that there is only one covenant, not two.
I’ve never heard of this split in the churches of Christ before, and I don’t see mention of it in the directory I have access to (although it is an old one…). Is anyone familiar with this group, and can you shed some light on them for me?
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
February 21st, 2006 at 16:15
Clarke-
That’s a new one to me. I have heard of numerous splits but never this one. I will be interested to see what others have to say about this and if anyone has ever heard of it.
Kent
February 21st, 2006 at 16:23
Wow, news too me as well. Upon my studies of the Restortion Movement, I have never come across such a split or even the name “One Covenant”
Do they have a phone number? Give them a jingle
Would you care to share the web address so we can check it out?
John
February 21st, 2006 at 17:39
J.P.
I’ve left a note on the door to call me, and I sent them an email..no response on either. I know their hours so I may just attend one day, but thats hard because I’m always doing something during worship.
Their web site is North Clackamas Church of Christ.
-Clarke
February 21st, 2006 at 18:14
I suspect it’s one variant of the Homer Hailey doctrine on MDR. I’ve usually heard it refered to as “universal moral law,” though, so I’m not sure if it’s the same.
There’s a Powerpoint slide on this page you can take a look at that outlines something called the “one covenant” doctrine (search on those words).
MDR, of course, is the single most divisive issue in NI churches today.
February 21st, 2006 at 18:16
Hrm, interesting. Appears one of their regular speakers is someone I went to school with.
February 21st, 2006 at 22:53
Jeff:
Thanks for the info…I wasn’t aware of that page.
You know, I’m probably one of the most conservative members of my congregation as far as what I believe regarding MDR, but I find it very unfortunate that this issue is divisive with the NI congregations. Some of the stories I’ve heard are horrendous…
-Clarke
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:21
Hey Clarke,
I did a little exploring and found a lot of sites advocating a theory of “one covenant” aka “covenant of grace.” This theory holds that God ordained this covenant before the creation of the world, and that it was in effect prior to Moses and remains in effect today. You can read one explanation of this theory here
In my googling around I did not find a Restoration Movement church of Christ advocating this teaching. I did found one place where Alexander Campbell argues against that theory. Apparently the theory can be traced back to the Anabaptists, which means it is not hard to imagine that the theory exists in some portions of the churches of Christ.
Alan
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:29
Here are a couple of links related to this that may be relevant.
Covenant of Grace: basically a history of the theory
Alexander Campbell comments on this theory in a paper on Christian baptism.
The One Covenant theory seems to be related to the debate on infant baptism (apparently held by some supporters of that practice). I don’t have any idea whether the congregation you saw would take it to that conclusion.
Alan
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:50
This COC doesn’t buy into the belief that God has different dispensations for those living under the law, and those living under grace; only “one covenant” has been established, and it has no boundaries.
Several religious groups believe in the “one covenant” approach, but like you, this is the first time I have heard of a church with Restoration roots dividing over this particular teaching.
The Protestant Reformed Church, and I believe some tribes of the Pentecost church also believe in the “one covenant.”
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:35
Hello,
I would have preferred to send a direct email but if you would like to know more about the one covenant view in the NorthWest please email me and I’ll share what little I know.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:54
Alan:
I would be really surprised if they take it that far since they are members of a non-institutional congregation. The NI churches are usually staunch advocates of doctrine, and I can’t seem them accepting such a teaching at all.
-Clarke
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:44
Clarke:
Yeah, I tend to agree it’s not likely related to infant baptism and the like. Then again, I’m sure stranger things have been taught from the pulpit at NI churches. Autonomy’s a guarantee of that.
Re: MDR, I find myself in the middle of the debate where the Hailey doctrine is concerned. One side has the truth but not much love, while the other side manifests love but not much truth. And that’s without delving into all the other MDR-related debates that have sprung up over the past two decades or so…
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:57
Hey Clarke,
The MDR issue is interesting. So maybe “one covenant” theology works for people who want to bring back the permission for divorce and remarriage that existed under the law of Moses. (And maybe it also works for those who want to baptize babies). It’s probably not really that shallow but it raises suspicion. Why else would MDR be a primary discussion in defending or attacking the soundness of a covenant theology?
Alan
February 22nd, 2006 at 14:14
Hmmmm… non-institutional one covenant. What I really want to know is how many cups for communion.
Ok. I admit this is a new one. But is that one from the beginning to the end… or one replacing the previous one. I know… don’t ask too many questions. My head is spinning.
February 22nd, 2006 at 15:14
Mark:
It sounds like one covenant from begining to end to me.
-Clarke
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:26
“Hmmmm… non-institutional one covenant. What I really want to know is how many cups for communion.”
Common misconception among institutionals. The one-cuppers are a different group entirely. Broke off from the “mainstream” about 3 decades before the institutional split and thus owe their NI nature to historical reasons; no more than a handful of churches were institutional at the time.
It’s not unlike confusing institutional churches with the ICC.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:13
Yes, Jeff, the One-Cup Churches are not NI churches. The One-Cup Churches actually were a part of the Non-Sunday School Churches of Christ, a group also not to be classified with the NI churches. This group broke off in the 1930s/1940s. Then, later on, the One Cup churches split from the mainline Non-Sunday School Churches of Christ. Are you confused yet? I would be if I did not grow up in the Non-Sunday School Churches of Christ.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the Non-Sunday School group. Actually, I would say that they are more open and more progressive than many mainline Churches of Christ. They simply are conservative on the one issue, though the vast majority of them no longer make that issue a test of fellowship.
February 23rd, 2006 at 14:04
As I understand it there are two groups on Non-Sunday school churches. There are those that have located preachers and those that do not have located preachers.
February 23rd, 2006 at 14:10
We need some sort of family tree showing where all the branches happened.
February 23rd, 2006 at 14:47
Doug:
Thats a great idea! I like it.
-Clarke
February 23rd, 2006 at 17:50
You can check out the Wikipedia articles for some of the history (and contribute some, if you like):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_churches_of_Christ_%28non-institutional%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement
I’m a little bit protective of the NI churches article (obviously, since I wrote almost all of it
), but there are some obvious gaps in all of these that could use filling.
February 23rd, 2006 at 17:54
Jeff:
You can feel free to create or edit pages on the church at Restorationwiki as well… I’d love if you did.
-Clarke
February 25th, 2006 at 16:26
Uhmmm… my comments were tongue in cheek about the one cuppers and NI.
That aside (if there is room for more sides), I wonder if what some of the movements Campbell left isn’t what we have nearly become again.
I found this an example. To tell you the truth I know the lost could care less about most of our differences. On the other hand (and more importantly) I think we often care more about our discussions than the Lord does. We often violate our own principles of staying silent where the Bible is silent. For example: I have yet to run across ‘non-institution’, ‘no-class’ etc.
Considering the trends of most mainline churches we ought be preparing for the drastic changes that are already dominating our culture.
February 25th, 2006 at 17:10
Heh. I’m doing pretty good to almost keep up with posting on my site as it is.
Maybe when the kids go off to college in… lemme see, carry the one… 16 years. :\
March 6th, 2006 at 13:29
I have been reading the messages and there is a large world-wide brotherhood of one cup, one loaf, non-institutional, non-Sunday school, non-instrumental churches of Christ. Take a look at a website that one of our brothers created. Come and visit one of our congregations! www.newtestamentchurch.org
March 6th, 2006 at 15:52
Jason:
We are aware of the fellowship that believes in what you just described (though I’m not sure I would characterize it as large) and we are aware of the website (its in the links section).
I’m glad you’ve been reading the messages here, and I welcome you to return.
However, let me make a comment about the word “our.”
I’m guilty of using that word myself, its easy to do. I take your word “our” to mean “us over here that are different than you.”
I consider your congregations my congregations, or “our” congregations. We might disagree about certain expedients such as Sunday School, so called “institutionalism,” multiple communion cups, etc. However, we are all brothers. We are all baptised into Christ for the remission of our sins, we are all children of the Lord.
I hope you will come back on and post an affirmation of the same.
-Clarke
March 7th, 2006 at 7:20
Clarke,
I do agree that all who are baptized for the remission of sins and live their lives according to God’s word are Christians. I unfortuntaly do not see these things that we disagree on as “expedients”. Sunday school and multiple communiuon cups are nothing more than innovatons that were brought into the Lord’s church. If the Lord used one cup when he institued the communion,then who are we to change that? The scripture says he took “the” cup and “the” loaf, both indicating singular use. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone can derive anything different than that.
March 8th, 2006 at 22:27
Jason:
I don’t think any of us have derived anything but the fact that Christ used both one cup and one loaf of bread when he instituted the Lord’s Supper.
The difference of thought here is that while one cup congregations believe that there is something essential in using one cup to take communion, the rest of us believe that the essence of the Lord’s Supper is the actual taking of the emblems and remembering the Lord’s painful death on the cross to cover our sins.
I may be incorrect, but it does seem to me that the use of more than one cup to partake in the Lord’s Supper is inconsequential to taking it. Don’t get me wrong - I feel that the Lord’s Supper is the most important thing that we do in our worship to God, and I take it very seriously - but I think that the form is this matter is not as important in the function when it comes to one or multiple cups.
As far as Sunday schools, are they an innovation? Sure, I guess you could say so. I don’t feel they are a negative one. Sunday schools are beneficial to our members and children. They provide more understanding of the bible and how to be a Christian. Jesus said in 12th chapter of Matthew that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, when questioned by the Pharisees about his activities on the Sabbath. Based on that fact, I would have to also state that it is lawful for us to good on Sunday morning before we worship.
In closing, I respect the scriptures, Jason. I feel that the bible is our sole authority. However, at one time I looked at the bible, and especially the New Testament, as a book of law, a rule book. I no longer look at it in quite that sense any more. I more I read the words of Jesus, the less I consider the scriptures to be law. That is not to say that there are not commandments to be followed and obeyed, but the bible is much more than that.
-Clarke