There are many words not found in the Bible, yet hold great meaning for Christians all over the world. The word Trinity is not in the Bible, yet most Christians believe in it. The word discipleship is not found in the Bible, yet it is a critical component to the maturity of a Christian. There are many more examples of this, but there is one more important word not found in the Bible, and that is the subject of this meditation.
Interdependence is not in the Bible, but appears to be central to the meaning of ‘ekklesia’ the word we translate as church. What does ekklesia mean? It literaly means, “a calling out”. Basically, it was used to label a group called for a specific purpose. In the Bible, it is used of a mob (Acts 19:32
), but most often in reference to the assembly of believers. As the ‘ekklesia’ or community of believers, what is our specific purpose? A fully defined answer can be found here, but primarily, it is to teach the word of God, provide fellowship, remembering Jesus through communion, and prayer.
Looking at Acts 2:42, it is obvious why the new belivers had everything in common. They had not planned to live in Jerusalem, merely visit for the Passover. The new Christian community pulled together with the purpose of meeting the needs of everyone. Three thousand became believers, but they were definitely in need of each other in order to survive. Instead of merely providing for each other, though, they devoted themselves to the fellowship. Paul would later tell the Thessalonians that they needed no instruction on brotherly love: it would appear that the first church in Jerusalem needed no instruction at its inception.
Later in church history, we see that in Paul’s missionary journeys, one community of believers needed each other. Philippi provided supplies and money for Paul’s missionary efforts in Macedonia (Phil 4:15). Macedonia and Achia (think Philippians, Thessalonians, Bereans, Athenians, Corinthians, and Cenchareans) sent money to Jerusalem (Romans 15:26). It is believed that the Romans gave Paul money for a trip to Gaul. There is no doubt that churches in one city knew of churches in other cities (1 Thess 1:4) and that they provided assistance to each other.
It is reasonable for administrators to manage the money and needs across several congregations. Peter and the other apostles did this in Jerusalem (Acts 4:35), Paul did this throghout the Gentile world(many references). But what was an apostle’s role in all this?
Apostles were called to a specific purpose; Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles and Peter as an apostle to the Jews (Gal 2:8). Paul, in his role, went from place to place preaching first in the synagogues (Acts 17:2), and then anywhere he could, usually the home of a new convert. (Acts 17:7) He spoke in Gentile assemblies (Acts 19:19) and the marketplace (Acts 17:7). To demonstrate his approval from God (1 Co 2:4), he was empowered to heal the sick (Acts 19:12), cast out demons (Acts 16:18), speak in other languages, and other supernatural things. As the apostle to the Gentiles, he had no qualms with sending people to strengthen (many references) or even straighten out a church(Titus 1:5). As God’s chosen messenger to the Gentiles, he certainly had a mandate from God to do these things.
What does this wordy and overlong meditation have to do with interdependence? Well, looking the early church, they seemed to require no central agency to help each other. When a need arose, they worked to meet it (2 Co 8:14-15). The need supplied by the apostles, Paul in particular, seemed to be communication between the churches. As one church knew the needs, other churches could provide help. Nothing stopped the Philippians and other Macedonian churches from giving (2 Cor 8:3-4) on their own.
What of conflicts? Seems that the apostles, elders, and folks from three Gentile churches were able to meet adhoc to answer a difficult issue (Acts 15). The letter went out from the apostles and elders, carried by specific messengers. A ruling went out on the difficulty. It’s interesting that the ruling was changed later (the prohibitions of eating strangled animals and meat offered to idols were later removed).
What of the current ICoC situation? Nothing prevents any of our churches from helping each other. Chicago started a missions society with several members that send money overseas. Boston and South Florida have done similar things. We should have an adhoc gathering to discuss other churches needs and find churches willing to help. There are still churches that need help.
Nothing prevents a church from planting another – especially in working with another church to do so. My minister wants to plant a chruch in Wisconsin. He asked couples here if they wanted to help. He then went to our church in Minnesota to ask folks to help from there. Looks like about 20 or so will be going on the church planting and this was all accomplished without a central agency.
When Katrina hit New Orleans, many gave to HOPE worldwide. Nothing prevented anyone from volunteering or sending money. Our church gave to three families directly, two of which were not members of our sister church in New Orleans. Other churches sent direct help to the church in N.O. It seems that churches in Texas and elsewhere gave the most direct help. Again, all this without being told from a regional director.
Nothing prevents churches in a regional area from meeting together and helping each other. The Heartland Churches of Christ will even soon have a website. The central resource can help smaller congregations have a web presence. But more importantly, meeting once a month, common issues can be discussed. The Heartland organization has no officers, no oversight of member churches, no creedal statements, and yet events are coordinated and resources pooled for mutual benefit. What need is there for another organization? What other level of working together is needed? When Omaha did the Purpose-Driven Church, the KC church provided materials they customized. When Wichita started using Family Dynamics materials in marriage retreats, other Heartland Churches began sending folks to FD to be trained. When Kip started trying to split churches here, they all met together and made a common statement against Kip. Really, what other interdependence needs to be demonstrated?
An even better opportunity for interdependence is available by working with Independent Christian Churches and/or Churches of Christ in a given city. Stadia has shown that these groups can and do work together to spread the gospel. Why can’t we work with them as well? Why can’t we partner with other groups in our city to help the poor and needy? My church worked with a Vineyard Church two years ago to have a blood drive. We still have a working relationship with them that allows us the use of their building.
I read about connectionalism and I wonder why it is needed. With the ICoC’s unique history, we can be so much more than that. I think this is especially true considering that we are still working through various aspects of our past and an emgerging split. I have no illusions, we have a very long way to go and a lot of work to be done. I think we have demonstrated that we are not mature enough to have any kind of central body with any governance. The good news is that, we probably do not need it. I understand that Amercians in general have an extreme problem with any authority – but even on a pragmatic level, it’s simply not needed around here.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t some expedient things about a central governing body (bishopric):
We can more easily denounce Kip and his heresy.
We can move staff around more easily because local churches will not need the interview process.
We can adminster funds to regional churches more easily.
We can _____ (help from the audience?)
What about training? The early church had the school in Alexandria. The CoC has Abilene (and Pepperdine and Harding). Abilene brought the ICoC and CoC together. The ICoC has four speakers there. Pepperdine brought the Southern Baptist Convention and the CoC together. This year, the Restorationists of all stripes are talking about unity.
That is, except us. We’re talking instead of consolidating and cementing ourselves as a denomination. God help us.
Nothing wrong with being a denomination. It can be of great benefit as you pointed out. As you said, nothing is stopping you from doing a good many of the things that your church does, but perhaps some of the things that you’ve done could have been more easily accomplished with some level of interdependecy. The trick is to not let that become a crutch. We work with churches that aren’t part of our denomination as a way to keep from becoming a sort of “clique”. And you don’t have to be a denomination to fall into some denominational traps. Like believing that your church has a lock on a certain doctrine.
True enough. I understand denominationalism as a way for Christians to have disagreements yet not argue about trivial things (style of worship, frequency of communion, etc.) My personal preference at this time, is to find other ways to have the benefits of a denomination.
I think that forming a central body would make certain efforts expedient as you say. However, I do not believe that we have anyone with the maturity to be a part of the central body without ‘lording their authority’ as they did up until three years ago.
Set up missions societies, schools, and the like. It coordinates things without taking authority from the local church. Three years of not having control is not enough to cure anyone of control issues, unless they have been receiving structured psychological help. Patterns of control are VERY difficult to break, especially for folks that wielded absolute power.
Despite vehement protests, we were a denomination. We had a central office, a CEO, a central doctrine and policy group, regional directors, a charity wing, our own publisher, and a content stream of our own creation. We were the International Chruches of Christ(TM) and we were all pretty much alike.
The article I am making reference to is not available for public consumption, yet. I would be interested in your thoughts about it, once it has been made public.
Great post. I think you’re spot on. One of the things we have not been good at in the past is being patient. I see cooperation developing between churches. The Ohio churches continue to do things together, we’ve been able to help the Dayton church a little through a difficult time, we’ve developed a good relationship with Hampton Roads. Let time, maturity and needs do their work.
We in the ICOC had what I like to call “A Culture of Expediency”" We perceived a need or had what we thought was a good idea, we quickly formulated a ‘solution’ and implemented it now. There was no time for meditation, for the working of the spirit.
There seems to be a bit of that here. I’m sure some feel like this is taking forever, but what I see is a close knit group of churches dealt a devastating blow of humbling exposure to their own sin followed by a withdrawal into introspection and reexamination and now we are beginning to poke our heads out again. Some are saying that mean it’s time to ‘get back together’ and get busy. I say, we don’t even really know who we are yet or where we ought to go, where the spirit is leading us. Give it time, we’ll figure out how to work together. Very few churches, of individuals I bet, long to be isolated and completely autonomous. Be patient, but be persistent. We’ll get there. Given the changes we’ve gone through, 2 1/2 – 3 years to find our collective footing again does not seem unreasonable.
I have to admit that I was one of those people that believed in complete autonomy when this all started. I extrapolated the grab for power by the major leaders onto the leaders lower down. I advocated that everyone should mind their own business and leave others alone.
Since then, I have seen and heard good things happen. A Christian Church leader in Albany is meeting with an ICC church leader there. Triangle is doing similar things. Boston met with Dr. Olbrecht. Chicago had some classes developed specifically for ICoC ministers. Folks from CoCs are placing membership without being rebaptized. Some are participating with Abliene in a few things. Kip was publicly denounced. It goes on.
In light of this and other developments, I am not as isolationist as I once was.
I am, however, still leery of those that stayed in power on the highest levels from before until now. If they are about spreading the gospel, that’s fine. But for some of them, all I have heard in their public letters, sermons, and correspondence is, “God is in control. We need leadership. I humbly accept the responsibility of being the leader that the church worldwide needs.” Even in Kip’s rebuke, it sounds like they are more worried about controlling their own people than false doctrine.
Missions are great, let’s go do something. I’m not anti-missions in the least. I share my faith with people. There are other people trying to save the world that share our doctrine on most things, let’s work together on this. If we are really all about missions, let’s look for ways to work together. There are enough unchurched people in any given city to keep us all busy.
Instead, this pre-release implies that we are just going to do it ourselves because we somehow have the lock on doctrine, method, zeal, and/or determination. If not that, then we somehow need a central body so that these leaders can have their trans-congregational authority back. Even providing the benefit of the doubt, it still seems like we have to have the same history in order to work together. What a waste.
Like in most companies, the middle management took the brunt of the change. Upper management largely skated by. I still believe many of the folks on the highest level need to have a real job for a year, just to understand what it is like to have a boss, be responsible, manage your affairs when someone else sets your schedule, etc. I do not see much evidence of wanting what is best for the people – I see evidence of doing what is convienient or best for specific leaders.
I found this pamphlet re Congregationalists and thought this page in particular was very interesting re how Congregationalist church inter-relate. This seems closer to what I’d like to see than a UMC or Presbyterian model.
ttk
http://www.naccc.org/Cong_Way_Series/What_It_Means/Page_6.htm
Hey Pinakidion,
Superb post!
You and I are thinking the same things about the interdependence topic.
I’ve been preoccupied with many things but I need to make time to stop by here more often!
Alan