Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 5

A few months ago I began blogging a bit about Stone-Campbell Movement churches in western Canada.  Continuing the series . . .

 A question that I suppose could simply be ignored by churches that derive from the Stone-Campbell Movement, but one with which I think some (perhaps especially newer) Stone-Campbell Movement churches in western Canada are wrestling is whether or not they want their ministries as churches overtly to reflect this heritage.  Although it is likely that at least some vestiges of this heritage will be present in a church deriving from the Stone-Campbell Movement, is there value in a church continuing intentionally to identify itself with its background, or should certain factors cause our churches essentially to ignore their heritage?  For example, since the very ethos of the Stone-Campbell Movement is oriented toward a non-denominational, autonomous approach to church polity, should whatever influence the larger Movement may have on an individual church be discounted, set aside, or intentionally ignored?  Should whatever special relationships that might exist between churches deriving from the Stone-Campbell Movement be superseded or be lessened in significance by the relationships our churches may have with other Christian fellowships in light of the unity plea that was originally so much at the core of the Stone-Campbell Movement?  Are there elements to being a Stone-Campbell Movement derived church that should actually be overcome, so that it would be a God-honouring, biblical, ministry-advancing move to advance past our Stone-Campbell connections and identities so that we can better become the churches God wants us to be?  Are there other, more vital connections with other groups that our churches could make that would serve the advancement of their ministries above and beyond their connections to other Stone-Campbell churches or institutions or organizations?

On the other hand, if a church chooses to remain overtly reflective of its Stone-Campbell heritage, what exactly does this mean for the way it operates, for the connections it has to other Stone-Campbell Movement churches?  And what will or should these connections look like?

These questions are significant, I think, for several reasons.  First, there currently exists little working connection between some Churches of Christ a cappella and other churches derived from the Stone-Campbell Movement.  There are of course, members of these churches that still have relationships with members from other Stone-Campbell Movement churches, due to past connections, but there are almost no formal larger gatherings, no larger organizational ties, and few common projects on which they are working together.  And this applies to both the connections between Churches of Christ a cappella with other Churches of Christ a cappella and the connections of these churches with churches from the two other major branches of the Movement (Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ).  Given the current situation, will churches in western Canada from the Churches of Christ a cappella in a hundred years have any connection at all between themselves and other Stone-Campbell Movement churches in western Canada?  Will they even care if they do or not?  For some of us, this still matters.  Secondly, waning commitment to a common heritage could mean waning commitment to some institutions/organizations among us.  We have lost Western Christian College.  If there is little sense of connection between us, will we be able to collectively sustain committed support to Alberta Bible College and to the Bible camps that we support?  Third, if there are not overt connections and commitments to the Stone-Campbell Movement present among our churches, will not whatever unique values and positive assets to the Kingdom that characterize the Stone-Campbell heritage not be completely lost on those among us who are younger and those yet unborn?  If there are elements of value in whatever common theology and ecclesiology we share, will these valuable pieces from our heritage be passed on and valued by those who in future generations will become our church leaders?  Or will these valuable pieces from our past be lost so that there is less opportunity for them to positively impact the Kingdom?  Fourth, are we not stronger and more capable when working together with others?  Despite our inherent autonomy, our churches have in the past enjoyed the benefit of working together on some common projects, of being encouraged by our joint gatherings, of feeling like we are identified with something bigger and more impacting than just our individual churches.  Would it not be a shame to lose the benefits of being unified and working together?  Others can no doubt cite other losses that may exist if some or many Stone-Campbell churches slip away from a connection to our heritage. 

In previous posts in this series I made overtures to the value of there being more efforts made toward Stone-Campbell Movement churches connecting with each other.  In the coming days I want to expand on this suggestion.