Comments on: 108842847141496999

By: wes

wes — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 15:10:00 +0000

What is meant by ‘rigid’ Calvinism? I thought Stone wanted to be less confessional because it meant more evangelism?

By: Joel Quile

Joel Quile — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:03:00 +0000

OK, I admit defeat. I thought for sure that this blog entry had the potential to blow up. I was wrong. It didn’t even garner as much attention as Mike’s fatigue due to the Allstars entry. Maybe if he had said that Barton W. Stone liked gaucamole or Alexander Campbell had a foot fetish then this blog would have been one for the ages. Oh well.

By: Jason Retherford

Jason Retherford — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:55:00 +0000

Mike,

I love restoration history. Our early brethern would definitely not be welcomed in our churches today due to thier varying theologies. I have always thought it interesting that what started out as a restoration movement has become a conservation movement.

I am excited at the opportunites that are in our future, and maybe one day before the Lord returns we will figure out that there is room for more than one opinion on an issue/issues?

By: Brandon Scott

Brandon Scott — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:48:00 +0000

Amen, Mike! Amen, Joel! Amen, Barton! These are exciting times. Yes, sticks and stones may be thrown, but I have a sense that none of it can overcome the wonder that we will see in these coming days. Glory to God!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:06:00 +0000

When was “Church of Christ” first used? Leroy Garrett comments:

http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap5.html

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:29:00 +0000

As a long time member of the Church of Christ, with the desire to better understand it’s history, this seems like the perfect site for imformation.

When was the name Church of Christ adopted? In the Springfield document I find only church of Christ used as a part of the Body of Christ at large. And is there additional documentation to denote that this particular Restoration Movement has been completed?

The history I have read (limited at best) seems to get very fuzzy in the early 1900’s.

As a fairly new member of Highland I take exception to Mike’s ‘pot stirer’ title. If it is true then he needs a bigger pot.

Jim

By: julie

julie — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:46:00 +0000

I have been told by many that this is not what we need to talking about…that we should center on Jesus. Of course, I am not saying that we shouldn’t center on Jesus….we just can’t continue to function as a church without addressing our past, present and future. We are stumbling right now because we are not sure who we are. We are pushing thinking people out and the people who are staying are those who are happy with the status quo. How can that be different? How can we be open to both ends and still reach people with the message of freedom and salvation? Is it possible?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:40:00 +0000

It’s net-speak for “in my humble opinion.” Best word of the day goes to Q for tetrapyloctomy — “splitting hairs four ways” — which could be listed in the mission statement of too many churches.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:35:00 +0000

What does imho mean?

By: Kathy

Kathy — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:10:00 +0000

Serena - interesting question. I’d probably look to the Church in China. We’d do well to follow their pattern, imho. No name on a building bcause there are NO church buildings, only homes and these have to be fairly fluid, moving from home to home, much as the first century believers did.
The Church in tribulation always seems to flourish, grow in numbers, but more importantly, grow in dedication to Jesus. Not a bad idea to begin with these days.
btw-anyone that thinks we are not in jeopardy of having your questioned premise happening in the good old USofA might want to take a closer look at the water heating up on the frog in this nation, imho. (Sorry, didn’t mean to turn this into a possible political post, but there it is. LOL)

By: Serena Voss

Serena Voss — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:54:00 +0000

And one more thing: What would be your first order of business toward that goal?

By: Serena Voss

Serena Voss — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:51:00 +0000

My dad once said, “Serena, Alexander Campbell did not die for you.”

Let’s assume for a moment that all Christian denominations were to sign such a pack, and just to make it interesting, let’s say that the government took over all our building and we were not permitted to assemble in our sanctuaries. If we were all committed to unity in Christ what would this new church look like?

By: Q

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:28:00 +0000

Pot-stirrer? I thought he was a poo-lighter.

You’ve got to be more consistent, Joel. I think you’re epithetical hermeneutic is suspect.

By: Joel Quile

Joel Quile — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:11:00 +0000

I’m calling my shot.

This blog will garner more comments than any to date.

Leave it to Cope to speak the truth! Thanks Mike!

Next thing you’ll say is that Jesus actually prayed that we’d all be one as He and the Father are one.

Pot-stirrer.

By: David

David — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:53:00 +0000

Almost ten years ago I was a minster of a Church of Christ that was going through an identity crisis. I would often make statements about unity from Stone, Alexander Campbell, and others. One of the elders along with a couple in the church wanted to meet with me concerning some of my remarks. The most fascinating comment I received concerned where “I was taking the church.” They were afraid that I was “leading” the church in a non-denominational direction. “We like being members of the Church of Christ,” they said. I am sure it was partially due to my lack of skills (and other issues) in presenting the message, however, I also realized that the times had changed. The message of unity and that Jesus should be “the focus of our faith” was now the message of the Community churches in our area.