Hey everyone.
I wanted to talk about something that’s been on my mind lately: Bible idolatry, or what some people call “bibolatry.”
The Church of Christ has often been accused of this throughout its history. The criticism is that they don’t just highly value the Bible, but that they almost elevate the book itself to the point where it seems like they worship the words on the page more than the God those words are supposed to point to.
I remember one time our preacher, who was genuinely a nice guy, was teaching from a book during Bible class. The author made the point that sometimes Christians can end up worshiping the Word instead of God Himself. The preacher immediately dismissed the idea as silly.
I remember sitting there thinking, “I’m not sure that’s a silly concern.” It seemed like a genuine question that deserved to be taken seriously.
The more I’ve reflected on it, the more I think I understand the Church of Christ mindset. In their view, the Bible is the only infallible authority. Christianity isn’t a hierarchical institution like Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It’s simply about following the Word of God exactly as they understand it.
If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, feel free to correct me if I’m misunderstanding your tradition. But my understanding is that those traditions believe the Church itself has a God-given teaching authority alongside Scripture. The Church of Christ rejects that completely. To them, anything that looks like a later development, tradition, or new teaching is immediately viewed with suspicion because it isn’t explicitly found in the biblical text.
I also wonder if this helps explain why the Church of Christ is often cessationist. I don’t think it’s only because of passages like 1 Corinthians 13. I think part of it is that they’re deeply afraid of being deceived. They don’t want to be tricked by false teachers or other Christian groups. In my experience, there was a real suspicion toward outsiders and toward any form of Christianity that didn’t look like the Church of Christ.
Growing up, I constantly heard that other churches only preached the “easy” parts of the Bible while avoiding the difficult passages. The Church of Christ, on the other hand, took pride in saying they believed all of Scripture and were willing to defend even the hard parts.
So here’s my question:
Do you think the Church of Christ crosses the line from having a high view of Scripture into something that could fairly be called “bibolatry”? In other words, do you think they sometimes elevate the Bible itself to such an extent that it almost functions as an object of devotion, rather than as something meant to point people toward God?
I’m genuinely curious what others think.

Forgive my long post but I felt an unexpected connection when I found this subreddit and after several days of reading had to add. Consider it my way of saying thank you!

I’m mid 40’s and was raised by divorced parents from my first year of life. Both were CoC members (long story) but my mother was pretty wild. My father’s family was straight “regular” CoC in TN. My grandfather was a guarantor on the note for the midcentury church building I grew up worshipping in, although he had a wife leave him during World War II and was therefore never an elder.

My grandparents, father, and aunt and uncle were amazingly loving humans, and all have passed now except my aunt. I can recall all the church tropes I find in threads here. I’m also old enough to remember men smoking in suits outside the building between church and Sunday school. I remember the outrage when an African-American family would make a weak attempt to enter our congregation (and remain). I remember prayers for us to be “once again known as a Christian nation.”

Area churches ran their own children’s home and retirement home. I served communion proudly and led long prayers and - when I went mercifully wild in college- even came in from staying with my girlfriend (not CoC), and hung-over, to lead our meager teen Sunday school class. Our church was always about 120 people and never many kids.

During high school, I had the shared experience of attending youth group with friends at a “liberal” CoC across town. Our town has a dozen CoC’s and two were always the black sheep. My dad hated it.

I attended our local private high school, standard CoC fare that came about in the fifties to combat integration. Thankfully, some teachers were outstanding and progressive and friends to this day. Others have gone predictably MAGA.

I consider that public college saved my life, causing me to see the good in people from all walks of life. Although I was encouraged not to let it “liberalize” me, it did it’s job- merely removed me from the bubble. Giving independent thought.

When I was 30, I made a sort of return to a large CoC with my wife (not Coc) and we made friends, but the cracks were showing. We had our first of two kids and after lots of miscarriages and no church support, we gave up on attending. I still held some broad faith until about 10 years ago until the YEC simply could not be ignored with any mental gymnastics, which led me to an overview of other world religions, a study of other creation myths, and definitely the failing of the hebrew historicity of the exodus.

Lots of things just couldn’t add up. I became agnostic and - amazingly- so did my wife in the same timeline.

Even as my politics swung left, I find myself sometimes still finding the 1980’s childhood simplicity alluring at moments. The loving old people and familiar hymns are strong memories. The clandestine walk out to the bathroom or water fountain. Then I find the important memories are so out of place with raising kids to be critical thinkers who aren’t bigots or intolerant of other people just trying to get through life authentically. The nostalgia goes away.

In moments I get frustrated that intelligent friends on Facebook I’ve known all my life are so “Christian Nationalist” CoC. At other times I remind myself just what it costs in cognitive dissonance and social disorder to leave, and I understand huge numbers of people just won’t ever challenge themselves enough to make the jump- intelligent or not.

Thanks for letting me post, it means a lot. I’m I Chattanooga, and I bet a few of you are, too.

Hey, guys.
I realize I’ve been posting so much that this subreddit is basically becoming my diary at this point. 😅 But I just feel like I need an outlet to get these thoughts out, and this has been a good place to do that.
I’m with my family right now, so I’ve been going to church with them. Today I sat in the young adults class, and we started talking about Jesus’ words that the world will hate you because you follow Him. The discussion was about how the world sees Christianity as oppressive and how Christians have to stand their ground when society turns against them.
As I sat there listening, something unexpected happened.
I started feeling empathy.
I’ve spent a lot of time being angry at the Church of Christ, and I still have plenty of criticisms. But as I listened today, I realized that many of the people sitting in that room aren’t trying to be malicious. They’re scared.
They genuinely believe the culture is changing in ways that threaten them. They believe people hate them simply because they’re Christians. They’re afraid of being rejected. They’re afraid of losing what they’ve always believed. Whether I agree with those fears or not, I think the fear itself is real.
That made me feel a little guilty.
I’ve written some pretty harsh posts, and while I still stand by many of my criticisms of the Church of Christ, I also don’t want to forget that the people in those pews are human beings. They’re not cartoon villains or evil monsters. They’re people with fears, hopes, families, and experiences, just like everyone else.
It made me ask myself, Who am I to judge them as harshly as I sometimes have?
I don’t think my criticisms are necessarily wrong, but I do think there have been times when I’ve criticized them in bad faith or let my anger get the better of me. That’s something I want to be more mindful of going forward.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts after church today.

The Pulaski Citizen, Pulaski, TN, July 20, 1866

The rest of the story can be read by clicking the link.

Link: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn85033964/1866-07-20/ed-1/

This is me being a little lighter than usual. This isn’t my normal serious, doom-and-gloom, “woe is me” post. I just wanted to talk about Church of Christ lock-ins.
When you were in youth group, lock-ins were treated like one of the biggest events of the year. The idea sounded awesome: stay up all night with your friends, drink a ton of soda, eat pizza, play games, run around the church building for nine hours… what could go wrong?
For me? Honestly… they were kind of overrated.
After a while, I’d just get exhausted. Some people would give up halfway through the night and go sleep in the nursery or another classroom. The girls usually had no problem admitting they were tired and going to sleep. The guys, on the other hand, had to be the “tough” ones and force themselves to stay awake. Looking back, I don’t know why we did that because by 3:00 a.m. everyone looked absolutely miserable. 😂
Then there were the smart people who would quietly leave around midnight and go home. At the time I thought they were quitters. Now I realize they were probably the geniuses.
It also makes me think about how much churches invest in youth groups. They spend years giving teenagers all these fun activities, retreats, lock-ins, pizza nights, and camps. Then you become an adult, and suddenly all of that disappears. Sometimes it almost feels like Christianity loses a lot of its appeal once the youth group experience is over.
Maybe that’s just me.
Did anyone else actually enjoy lock-ins, or did you mostly spend the last few hours wondering why you agreed to stay awake all night? 😂

I got married last year and we don’t want kids yet, but I’m already worried about the dynamic between my husband’s family and our future kids. My FIL is a church elder. My MIL and SIL talk shit about every single person in their lives, especially those who do not practice religion the “right way”. We’re closet atheists but we are on the verge of publicly splitting from the church. I have a feeling it’s not going to go over well. How did y’all navigate boundaries around religion with your family?

(also, just wanted to add, we do not care if our kid wants to join an organized religion when they’re older. we just won’t be raising them in one.)

The Church of Christ is such a confusing group of people.
Honestly, I think the whole “we’re not a denomination” thing is actually their undoing, not their strength.
You’ll hear, “Bro, we’re not a denomination. We don’t have creeds. We just pick up the Bible, open it, and follow it exactly like the early church did.”
And I’m just sitting there thinking… okay, but then why are there so many different Churches of Christ?
You’ve got the mainstream Churches of Christ, the non-institutional Churches of Christ, the one-cup Churches of Christ, instrumental Churches of Christ, and then other churches literally called “Church of Christ” that aren’t even part of the Restoration Movement. Every group insists they’re simply following the Bible.
Then it gets even funnier. One congregation will treat something as a serious sin, while another Church of Christ across town won’t think twice about it. Some are progressive and allow women in leadership. Others won’t let women do much of anything during worship. Some are extremely conservative. Others are much more relaxed.
I grew up in what I would have called a “standard” Church of Christ. But even calling it “standard” is confusing because what counts as standard completely depends on where you live. Go to one city and most of the Churches of Christ are progressive. Go somewhere else and they’re almost all conservative.
They’re always saying they’re not a denomination, but they seem to have denominations within the non-denomination. How does that even work?
The Restoration Movement didn’t solve the problem of Christian division. In my opinion, it just created another branch of Christianity with its own internal factions that spend a lot of time disagreeing with each other. There’s something almost ironic about that.
I don’t hate the people in the Church of Christ. There are a lot of kind, sincere people there. But I do hate the fear and trauma that my experience left me with. I remember hearing sermons every week about how the world would tell us the Church of Christ wasn’t right, and that we had to stand firm for “the truth.”
Four years ago, I would have defended that church without hesitation. Today, I don’t know what I believe about it anymore.
My dad didn’t have an easy childhood, and I think that made him especially vulnerable to the Church of Christ. I don’t blame him for that. If anything, I just feel sad about it.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts I’ve been having lately.

Even as an agnostic atheist, I could see where those who still consider themselves Christians could agree on this one with atheists. How many lifelong, devoted, CoC members do you suppose face death not looking forward to a certain eternity in heaven with their Lord and Savior, but scared they "weren't good enough"? This goes against their own theology, but when you emphasize sin and the results of it so constantly, you get a gut response based not on love of Jesus, but guilt and fear of hell, above all else. Even if their own theology were to be correct, how many would approach the throne of judgment and be denied admission into the heavenly kingdom because, "You aren't here claiming to be a Christian because you loved the Christ, but because you were afraid of hell"?

This issue isn't just a conservative CoC problem, to be clear. It's endemic to all overly conservative evangelical denominations, and conservative Catholicism. Fear and guilt drive the bus.

A funny atheist meme illustrates this view of Jesus, knocking at the door of a lost person's house:

Jesus: Let me in!

Occupant: Why?

Jesus: To save you.

Occupant: Save me from what?

Jesus: From what I'm gonna do to you if you don't let me in.

For my money, this one is worse than elitism, sexism, racism or any other "ism," because it affects everyone, rich and poor, every color, men and women, and children alike. Any religion based on scaring you into compliance is a religion that isn't worth following. Either that, or your heavenly father is really a heavenly bully, seeking vengeance.

… when they brought in a preacher to preach and evaluate him for a job there?

I know what preachers called it, but what did congregations call it?

(My dad’s circle called it “trying out” for a job. They also called it “walking the dog” lol!)

Hey everyone.
I just wanted to talk about something again. I’m trying to be less harsh and less judgmental toward people in the Church of Christ, but I’ve realized something that has really stuck with me.
I don’t know why so many preachers just get on stage and read verse after verse after verse. They’ll throw out a bunch of passages, talk about providence, and then stress that providence doesn’t involve miracles. To me, that’s always seemed strange because it almost sounds like they’re saying God won’t help you miraculously, which makes God seem oddly distant.
Then they’ll talk about the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they’ll say you can feel the Holy Spirit, but then they’ll turn around and ask, “Is Satan putting those ideas into your head?” That always confused me. I remember when I was still in the Church of Christ, I constantly felt frustrated because I couldn’t tell what feelings were supposed to be from God and what feelings were supposedly from Satan. They never made it clear. It always felt like they were trying to do this balancing act where some thoughts are from God, some are from Satan, and somehow you’re supposed to know the difference. It just left me confused.
A lot of the preaching also seems to involve reading what feels like a hundred million verses all at once. Here’s one verse. Here’s another verse. Here’s another verse that isn’t really about the same topic, but they’ll take one word from it and connect it to another passage like they’re building a Lego set. After a while, I’m just thinking, “Whoa, slow down.” Stop moving so fast and actually talk about what the passage means. Stop being so dogmatic that everything has to connect to everything else.
They’re always warning about false teachers, about how the world is full of lies, and how you have to renew your mind with the Bible. Then they’ll tell you that if you feel something very strongly, it could be Satan, and if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, then it can’t be from God because God never contradicts Himself.
What frustrates me is that they present all of this with so much certainty while rarely acknowledging that there are genuine debates about Scripture, context, and interpretation. To me, it often feels like everything is built on proof texting, assuming the conclusion before the discussion even begins, and connecting verses that weren’t originally talking about the same thing.
Maybe I’m being too harsh. I honestly don’t know. I just needed to get this off my chest because I get so frustrated listening to some Church of Christ preaching. To me, it represents many of the problems I have with a certain style of Protestant Christianity: proof texting, reading verses out of context, assuming every conclusion in advance, and treating complex issues as if they’re incredibly simple. That’s the part I just can’t stand anymore.

Hi everyone,
I’m hoping this is an appropriate place to ask this.
I’m currently involved in a legal case involving events that occurred while I was a member of the Church of Christ. One issue in the case is understanding the religious environment I was living in at the time, particularly teachings and expectations surrounding:
Wifely submission
Male headship/authority
Divorce and separation
Adultery and “repentance”
Church discipline and community pressure
How these teachings can influence someone’s ability to push back or leave a marriage
I’m not looking for someone to testify that abuse occurred in my specific case or to advocate for me. That determination belongs to the court.
Instead, I’m looking for someone with substantial knowledge of Church of Christ doctrine and practice, perhaps a former elder, preacher, minister, professor, historian, or researcher who might be willing to discuss whether they have experience serving as an expert witness, or who knows someone who does.
If anyone has recommendations, publications, organizations, or names of people who have studied these topics, I would be extremely grateful.

Feel free to ask around. Look at my previous posts but I have a really serious court case going on. I can share any and all information so you know what is going on and you know I am of good character and have gone through way more abuse than even my Reddit history has expressed.

Thanks for your time.

This will be stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Thought there might be others here who would enjoy it. 🎶

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1GTQ3QoPau/?mibextid=wwXIfr

ICC or icoc

From June 21st, 2026 - Faith is believing the impossible - [Evangelist] Sean Kirklin - 39:49 - 47:20

Good morning, church. It is good to be here. I have an announcement that I wanted to make. We were hoping to do this last week. We weren't able to. But I've been telling you we're in the process of wanting to make an announcement about the eldership in our church. I wanted to give you the update on our situation and kind of where we're at right now.

As all of us are aware of, a couple months ago, one of our two Elders, Bill Kunes, who has served alongside Tony Overstreet as our two Elders here in the church for the last nine years, Bill and Hillary decided to move to Indianapolis so they could be grandparents and enjoy that stage of their life. And so that puts us down to only having one Elder in our church right now.

If you study out biblically… you know, every time the word Elder is used in the Bible, it's always plural. The only time it's not used [in the] plural is it's when it's actually talking about the qualifications for an Elder. And so it's not talking about the Elders in a church. It's just said that an Elder has to be “this”. That's the only time it's used in the singular. Every time in the Bible it's used, it's used in plural. The reason being is it is a lot of pressure being an Elder. Being a shepherd of the church - that is a huge load to put on one person. And I think God understands that very well. That's why God wants there to be a team of Elders. And so as of right now, since we're down to one Elder, we've made the decision as a leadership team as we examine the scriptures, we are going to dismantle our current Eldership.

Is Tony up here yet? (He's doing what all great men do. He's down serving in Kingdom Kids right now.) But Tony, and you know, anytime you're an Elder, you can be disqualified for being an Elder because of your wife. And so which means you've got to marry well and really treat your wife in an incredible way. And both of these guys, every good Elder always has an amazing wife behind them. And both of our Elders did. Tony and Bonita have served this church endlessly. We are so grateful for their servanthood. We're so grateful for the sacrifices that they've made over the many years way before they got the title of being an Elder. But these last nine years during their Eldership has been pretty intense because of all the things that have gone on in our world as well as in our church. And so, we are so grateful for their hard work, their service, and all that they have done. And so, hopefully he'll get up here in a minute. We'll have him stand. And, actually, right there he is. Tony, come on in. and you and Bonita, you you missed all the encouraging things I said about you, but Tony and Bonita truly have been just a right hand to Mindy and I ever since we've been here, and we just we love them so much. We're so grateful for them, and we're so grateful for the way that they have poured their heart out. And here's the thing: we don't want the pressure to be on them, but Tony is still going to be doing the things. Tony has never changed. He is the man that he is. He's going to help us in many, many great ways.

The one thing that I did want to share in absence of having an Eldership, we've had questions arise. Well, what is the leadership structure of the church going to look like? Well, two things: one, when we did the surveys about a year and a half ago, we heard from the congregation that they wished that the the senior leadership team, which was the two Elders and their wives and Mindi and I, had more input from other people in the congregation. Because of that fact and then also because we knew that the possibility Bill and Hillary would be moving, we expanded our leadership to three additional couples: the Geyers, the Barneys, and the Montgomerys. So those three couples along with the Overstreets and Mindy and I - we make up the leadership team of the church right now. So we are going to be leading with them and through them and then you know our goal is to be able to reinstate and have another Eldership one day.

Some of the plans for that, one of the things that the ACR has been doing for… they started last year Walter Evans has a Elders training program. He's been an Elder for over 20 years and we look around to see any candidates that thought we think could be eligible one day. It may be a year from now. It may be five years from now, but could potentially be an Elder in the future. We put you in that training program with Walter and you're in there getting trained with Elders all over the ACR. Walter does not choose who's an Elder in any congregation except for the congregation that he oversees, which is the Philadelphia Church of Christ. Then after that, they also do some training with us, the Evangelists, and those Elder candidates together, and then after that training, program then we'll have a time where we will be getting with those Elders and I'll be calling on Tony's help and Tony and I will really be getting with them and counseling them going over the scripture - the qualifications - and what that means in our local congregation.

One of the other things that we're going to do is we're going to study out with the church what those qualifications are. One of the books that I would highly recommend if you want to learn more about this is “Elders and Leaders”. It's by Gene Getz. Gene Getz is a theologian from a Bible-based church outside of Dallas. He's written several books. Another great book he has is “Building Up One Another” that goes over all the one-another scriptures. It's great for our small groups. It's great for individuals in building great one another relationships. But he wrote this amazing book on Elders and leaders and it goes over all the qualifications for an Elder and all the things that we have to do and look into as a church. And so, Tony and I will be going over that, with those candidates - potential candidates. And then when we feel as a leadership team that we have two two brothers who are qualified and trained, because one of the worst things that you can do is put somebody in an Eldership who is not trained and not qualified. I've seen that happen before and it's disastrous. But when we feel like we have somebody who's qualified and trained, then we as a leadership team, we will bring those names before you as a church. We’ll have a time of prayer and examination probably for about four weeks, and if there's anything that you see that this this person would be unfit for for an Eldership, you bring it to somebody in the leadership's attention and then prayerfully nothing will be brought. And at that point in time we will reinstate and have an Eldership once again. So, please keep that process in your prayers. We do want to be able to have an Eldership in this church. It is meaningful. It is incredible to be able to have men that have that wisdom and knowledge that will help guide us in our future. So that is the update. If you have any questions, please come see me or my wife or anyone on the leadership team. Thank you so much.

Decapitated by sliding under the back of a semi, while “going to preach at a gospel meeting”.

I wonder if he said a swear word? Or had a bad thought?

If so, he can keep a seat warm for my ex ✌️

PS He was a hateful man.

I just started Cults Like Us: Why Doomsday Thinking Drives America a book by Jane Borden and I'm really enjoying it so far. I think understanding the soil the cofc grew out of is a big part of deconstructing its power.

Would anyone be interested in an impromptu book club to read it?

It has a nice dry humor kind of like a Sarah Vowell book.

I believe Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who wanted the people of Israel to conform to Jesus law, at least his version of it, and never had any intentions of forming "Christianity". The problem intellectually with this interpretation is the Great Commission where he wanted to convert the whole world (I really doubt Jesus, most likely an illiterate stone mason and carpenter, had any real concept of what the "world" was and had little knowledge of things outside Israel. So I looked this up and this is a summary of what Ehrman says about the Great Commission: Ehrman points out several major historical and textual problems with the passage:

• Contradictory Post-Resurrection Accounts: The four Gospels offer conflicting stories about Jesus' final instructions. For instance, Matthew places the commissioning in Galilee, whereas Luke places it in Jerusalem and Mark (in its original ending) lacks any post-resurrection appearances. [, 2]
• Historical Improbability: The historical Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who focused his ministry almost exclusively on Israel. Ehrman argues it is highly unlikely Jesus suddenly issued a universal, worldwide mission to all Gentiles right before a Kingdom he believed was arriving imminently.[1, 2]
• The Trinitarian Formula: Matthew 28:19 commands followers to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Ehrman notes that this full Trinitarian formula reflects later church orthodoxy rather than the words of the historical Jesus, who never referred to himself as God in the Synoptic Gospels. [1, 2]

What are people's opinions on this?

Hi everyone.
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the Church of Christ’s view of church history, and I think I’ve finally figured out how I see it.
It doesn’t seem to me that the Church of Christ views church history as something to appreciate, learn from, or respect. Instead, it often feels like it’s viewed as a long list of mistakes. I remember one preacher describing church history as being like a play where people kept taking the wrong steps. The lesson wasn’t to learn from the wisdom of Christians who came before us, but to identify where they supposedly departed from the Bible.
From my perspective, that means nearly the entire history of Christianity—from the generations after the apostles, through the church fathers, the medieval church, the Reformers, and beyond—is treated as a story of decline. The assumption seems to be that almost everyone got it wrong until the “restoration” of New Testament Christianity.
The more I’ve thought about it, the more that approach bothers me. It feels historically simplistic and dismissive of nearly two thousand years of Christian thought and experience. Rather than engaging seriously with the people who shaped Christian theology, it often seems to reduce them to examples of what not to do.
I also find the interpretive approach frustrating. At times it feels heavily dependent on proof-texting while overlooking historical context, literary context, and the broader witness of the Christian tradition. That doesn’t strike me as a particularly thoughtful or intellectually satisfying way to read Scripture.
I know this is a strong opinion, and I’m not trying to attack individual members. There are many sincere, kind people in the Church of Christ. But as someone who spent years in that tradition, I’ve come to believe that its view of church history is far too narrow, and its confidence that it alone has “restored” the true church simply isn’t convincing to me anymore.
I’m curious if anyone else has had similar thoughts or a different perspective.

The Christian Chronicle is talking about denominations and if the coc is one & the spiritual sword is talking about alcohol. I wish they talked about other things instead of rehashing the same things. It’s so disappointing

Hey, something happened the other day that I thought was pretty wild.
I’m in town on vacation, so I ended up going to a Church of Christ and attended the young adult class. During the discussion, one of the guys admitted that when he first became a member, they taught John 15 incorrectly.
He said they used to teach that John 15 was about evangelism, and that if you weren’t bringing people to Christ, you were in danger of going to hell.
That honestly surprised me, because Church of Christ congregations generally do not like admitting they’ve gotten anything wrong. So hearing someone openly say, “Yeah, we taught that passage incorrectly,” was kind of shocking.
That’s a pretty significant admission. You’re essentially acknowledging that for years, people were taught an interpretation of John 15 that wasn’t what the passage was actually about. The chapter is about abiding in Christ, remaining in Him, and not falling away from Him. Instead, people were being told that the withered branches represented Christians who weren’t evangelizing enough and were therefore headed for hell.
It made me wonder: how many other passages have been interpreted this way over the years? How often has a popular interpretation just been repeated for decades until someone finally sits down, reads the entire chapter in context, and realizes, “Wait a minute… that’s not actually what this says”?
I have to imagine it happens more often than people would like to admit.
That’s one of the biggest problems I experienced in the Church of Christ. There isn’t really any broader scholarly tradition or authority that people are encouraged to engage with. An interpretation becomes popular, gets repeated from preacher to preacher and congregation to congregation, and eventually it’s treated as if it’s simply what the Bible says. Then, years later, someone actually studies the passage in context and realizes the traditional interpretation wasn’t nearly as solid as everyone assumed.

Here is a 36 minute telephone discussion which I have just had with the ICC leader of their Auckland Congregation in New Zealand on Water Baptism covering: Acts 2:38, 10:44-48, 22:16 and John 3:3 and 20:23-24. Please note that I do not make these videos for the people whom i am talking to or people within forums such as these, as such people often have no interest in such matters. I have well over 5,000 video discussions with a wide range of religious cults and sects, I make these videos for the parents and friends of those trapped inside, so that they have some ammunition to fire back at the cult leaders and thereby rescue the brainwashed cult members. You see exposing the fact that a cult leader claims to be a Bible expert, but in dialogue proves himself to be a Biblical ignoramus, might not interest the general public, but it is something that a friend or a parent of a youngster trapped within a cult can use against the cult, especially when there are dozens or even hundreds of examples. Here is the link:

Religious Folk in Dialogue 1,045: The International Christian Church (ICC) in New Zealand

Did anyone else hear sermons that said you can't eat the blood of animals based on something written in one of the epistles? I remember being confused as a child because that conflicted with the verse that said all food was allowable. And the "all food is good" teaching conflicted with the verse about how if your brother doesn't think it's okay to eat meat, you shouldn't eat it, either.

I'm curious how widespread of a teaching it was that consuming blood, even when cooked in food (which is common in some cuisines) is sinful.

The people who deny bad or abusive behavior in the C of C or say, "well, I never heard of that," etc. are either sheltered, lying or most likely engaging in the behavior themselves.