For the last couple of weeks, I’ve had numerous discussions with and about the Non-Institutional churches of Christ (NICOC hereafter), both in preparation for and response to our Think Deeper Podcast episode on the topic.
You can watch the episode for a bit of a background if you’re not familiar, but a very basic summary is that the NICOC and the Institutional or Mainline churches of Christ (MCOC hereafter) had a sharp parting of the ways 70-80 years ago over whether the local church had authority to send contribution funds to parachurch organizations.
Our guest, Jacob Hudgins, was a wonderful representative for the view, and we had a very cordial discussion. Everything that follows in this piece is neither an attempt to speak for his point of view or to argue back against what he said in the episode.
Rather, I want to look at the prospects for unity between the NICOC and the MCOC going forward from here.
I am not under the illusion that one podcast episode would be sufficient to bridge the gap or spur widespread reconciliation efforts. However, it has stirred up a considerable amount of discussion, which I think has been helpful when it comes to clarifying what next steps look like.
I fielded suggestions regarding what needs to happen next, and I’d like to respond to a few of them here.
Get together
To me, this is the best, most viable suggestion. Visit the other congregation in your area. Have a meal together, wherever both are comfortable having it. Find out each one’s framework for unity, and see where it goes from there.
That’s all we can realistically do. There is no mass solution. This is not like labor negotiations, where two sides send their representatives and everybody lives by what is decided. As we are not a denomination, no group of preachers on either side can reach a conclusion that everybody will abide by.
Even with our one hour episode, we’ve received comments suggesting that it was too cordial, and that our guest did not put us in our place enough. If that’s what happens from one podcast episode, how much more would that happen if a widespread framework for unity was suggested?
Having one on one conversations and working locally are far better solutions. Widespread unity won’t happen unless there is small scale unity first.
Police our sides
I believe this is also a necessary part of a solution. I’ve had people wade into my comments lobbing bombs at the NICOC, and where I’ve seen it, I’ve tried to rein in their strong rhetoric.
I appreciate where I see the same policing being done in the opposite direction. When somebody says the MCOC are out of the Book of Life because we don’t care about the Bible’s authority, I hope that someone who is seeking unity would tell them to back off.
Unity is going to be a lot harder if we don’t push out the hardliners who want to open old wounds and slam the other side.
Stop using labels
I have been chided numerous times for using terms like “side,” “wing” and “Non-Institutional,” under the idea that such terminology is divisive or that the widely used terms should actually be scrapped to fit the commenter’s view of how the issue should be characterized. To those I say, terms like these only arise to describe already-existent realities, and we can’t communicate clearly if we make up our own terms.
Yes, we should avoid using inflammatory terms like “Anti” and “Progressive” for each other, but beyond that, we should aim to avoid being sensitive to terms. Communication necessitates distinctions of some kind, and we don’t get our own dictionaries.
Wrangling over the use of terms before the discussion even starts isn’t terribly conducive to unity.
Make our cases from Scripture
Some have suggested that further discussion of the sticking points is needed to open up the Scriptures and let both sides (yes, I’m calling them sides, because they are sides of an issue) make their cases.
The only way that makes sense is if one thinks that more talking will convince the other side to concede and change their minds. With books and articles and archived footage that has been compiled for over six decades, why would we think there is going to be a mass changing of minds now?
I am not in favor of continuing the debate. At a certain point a decision has to be made, which leads us to…
The options before us
There are a few options for where we go next, though—once again—none of them can be accomplished on a broad scale. Still, here are the possible options I see (and if I’ve missed any, let me know).
One side convinces the other
It has happened in some individual cases, but as I noted above, there is too much data that shows this is not a realistic conclusion to expect.
One side forces the other to comply
That’s not much of a unity solution, is it?
It may have been different in the past, but at this point in time, I don’t believe many on the MCOC side intend to make the NICOC folks participate in our fellowship meals or institutional support. Will the NICOC folks be united with us if we continue in these practices without forcing them to join?
To me, that’s where the issue hangs in the balance. Sometimes the answer seems to be yes; sometimes the answer appears to be no.
A 2017 meeting between the two camps led to numerous articles in Truth Magazine about the various areas of disagreement, but I couldn’t help but notice that the NICOC prescription came down to this: if we’re going to have unity, the MCOC will have to repent and change their ways. In their own words, we were placed in the same camp as today’s progressive churches, the kinds with whom we do not cross paths.
I don’t mean to be harsh by saying this, but I also think it should be obvious: if you invite people to a meeting, say you’re interested in unity, and yet your proposal is “Repent, agree with us, and change your ways,” don’t be surprised when it doesn’t go well, and future invitations are declined. Also, don’t slam them for “not wanting unity” when they decline those subsequent invitations.
That’s not a plea for unity. It’s an ambush.
We decide it’s a Romans 14-style matter of opinion
I believe this is where most MCOC folks stand, but I also believe this is NOT where most NICOC folks stand. And that’s alright. They are allowed to view it as something deeper.
We leave it to church autonomy
If we are going to be local church maximalists, which most of us would agree we should, then why can’t the church down the road hold some differing views? Does church autonomy allow for any differences? Are we allowed to demand another eldership submit to our own eldership?
Obviously, there has to be a line at which autonomy goes too far somewhere—otherwise, we’d be universalists.
But that brings us back to the central question. Does the MCOC’s use of funds cross that line?
If that is one’s position, then unity is not going to happen, and we should stop pretending it might. If you truly think those who paid for a fellowship hall are sinners bound for eternal damnation, or are at the very least in jeopardy for their insubordination, stand by it.
If one’s position is that it doesn’t break the line of fellowship, but it is a conviction you can’t break, that makes our path to unity fairly clear. I suspect the overwhelming majority of MCOC folks will meet you in the middle and seek to extend fellowship in a way that doesn’t violate your conviction.
We can argue about whose court the ball is in, but if both sides are open to fellowship in a way that doesn’t demand the other completely cave in, then it shouldn’t matter who’s the first one to extend an olive branch. Just start talking.
Leaving with some optimism
I don’t speak for anyone but myself with any of this. I am a complete outsider to the centers of influence in the MCOC. Having established that, take this for whatever it’s worth:
I believe we are closer to unity than it might look.
The missing ingredient is time. As Steve Wolfgang noted in his discussion with Caleb Robertson, history turns over in 60-80 year cycles as old ways and conflicts pass out of living memory. We’re approaching that timeframe for this divide.
And, I can’t help but notice that many of the most inflammatory comments I’ve received on either side have been from older folks, and the most openness has come from the younger. Even some of those older folks who offered compliments on our episode could not help but do so with the backs of their hands. Others have been prickly, and immediately gave themselves a pass because of the painful experiences of the past.
A lot of hurt feelings and distrust remain. There’s a good chance unity can be much easier to find for those who don’t carry such wounds.
No matter where you stand, we all should pray for unity just like Jesus did. If you’re like me, you might read a statement like that and nod, “Yeah, we should,” and then forget. So I’m going to ask you to take a minute right now and pray for unity, grace, soft hearts, and understanding.
We’re far closer than we have acted, and it’s time we change that.
