Assignment | Lesson One | Introduction to major turning points in Disciples history and the early worlds that shaped the Stone-Campbell Movement
June 18, 2026 6:16 PM
Part one:
After completing the assigned readings and videos, write a short reflection of at least 200 words. Your reflection does not need to summarize everything you read or watched. Instead, use it as an opportunity to think carefully about what you are learning and how it connects to your faith, your congregation, and/or your ministry leadership. You do not need to answer every question. Choose the questions that help you reflect most thoughtfully on the week’s materials. Your response should engage THREE of the following questions:
- What is one important thing you learned from this week’s readings, lecture, or videos?
- What surprised, challenged, or complicated your previous understanding of Disciples history?
- What questions are you still carrying after engaging this week’s materials?
- What is something from this period of Disciples history that seems significant for your personal faith?
- What is something from this period of Disciples history that has significance for your congregation or ministry context?
- Where do you see tensions between Disciples ideals and Disciples practice?
- Whose stories, voices, or experiences seem especially important to remember from this week’s materials?
Part two:
Respond to the contributions of at least two other class members. Your responses to others may include acknowledgment of helpful insights gained by a fellow student’s entry, further questions raised by another’s comments, or respectful critique of another’s argument.
This assignment is due on Sunday, July 12.
Discussion (27)
Having spent a week every summer at Cane Ridge West in Lincoln, Montana for church camp, I thought I was well-versed in the history of the Disciples. The history is all over the walls of the lodge. However, through this course and reading Sandhya’s book, I have realized how much I truly had to learn. While I previously knew the dates and events, I didn’t fully understand how that history correlates with and continues to affect my ministry today.
I have often approached history with a critical eye, questioning the hypocrisy of past leaders. Yet, as I navigate my own ministry, I now see the immense tension involved in seeking change without alienating others. I realized I hadn't been looking at our history within its proper context—specifically how the movement's origins mirrored the country’s settling and the desire for freedom from hierarchical structures.
The struggle for unity is particularly striking. I didn’t fully appreciate the impact of the Civil War on our denomination and the difficulty of maintaining unity in a divided nation. We face these same challenges today: how do we maintain unity in Christ when our beliefs are so varied? How do we balance love and service when viewpoints are so polarized?
I have also struggled with the "whitewashed" versions of our history. It has been eye-opening to engage with the stories that are often hidden or swept under the rug because they reflect poorly on the church, such as our past failures to speak out against slavery, and our treatment of America’s indigenous peoples.
This tension is very real in my current ministry, where the congregation is politically split. I often feel guilty for not saying enough, out of a fear of excluding one side or the other. I am beginning to realize that this tension is something we must continue to live in as we strive to be a church of unity.
I greatly appreciate your wrestling with the practical, pastoral question of how to speak out against injustice while not alienating those who might disagree. This question feels so salient for the climate in the country today. One question I wrestle with along these lines is, who is harmed when we don't speak out? And, who historically and contemporarily most needs those of us in positions of authority to speak out on their behalf? I wonder if Alexander Campbell and his trusted peers asked these questions related to whether to actively renounce slavery. In my ministry I work with churches and pastors across denominations and throughout the country. What I continue to see is that there are many churches that are safe places for people from historically privileged groups, less so, for those on the margins wondering who will uphold and love the fullness of their humanity.
I, too, was struck by the impact of the Civil War on the denomination. I hadn’t thought about the ripple effect beyond the nation’s history and how the church was impacted by the nation’s division. I’m wondering if the Disciples might soon be grappling with something similar as our nation is once again in a great divide.
It’s interesting that you mention Cane Ridge West displaying the history on its walls and yet there are still some unknowns. Cane Ridge West’s “sister” camp, the Gwinwood Retreat Center lost its Lodge as well as the historical archives in a fire in 2023. I’ve been thinking about how to rebuild/maintain/preserve the history. On one hand this could be an opportunity to fill in the previously missing gaps… but on the other hand, I may miss some important details by not knowing who to contact or reach out to. This months topic is relevant in so many ways- personally as well as for our corporate body.
Thank you so much for your honesty, Stephen. I really appreciate that you naming that tension in your own ministry. I think that we have to look at our history in order to better serve as Christians. It's not always easy to do and as a lay leader I can only guess how difficult it must be as clergy.
Growing up outside the US, the American history I learned was largely whitewashed. The heroic narrative of Abraham Lincoln often overshadows the profound impact that the issue of slavery and the Civil War had on churches across different denominations. I really appreciate the author pointing out this lesser-known history.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim believed that society could be studied without any personal bias. This idea is a hard-sell as people will interpret their experiences through their own ….personal bias. This brings us to the difficulty of looking at our own history as Disciples. Questions like: When was it recorded?; Who told it?; Who’s voice is not there?; and, now, What do we do about it? have been on my mind.
I wasn’t raised in the Disciples tradition so this history was new information for me. I had heard the names of Stone and Campbell and of a revival in Kentucky but didn’t know much beyond that. It makes sense that these two movements, both focusing on unity of believers, found each other and started a new denomination. The United States was expanding (literally) and these new thinkers followed suit. Stone and Campbell were reflecting the expansion of the United States with the frontier-do-it-a-new-way-and-make-it-work-as-we-can spirit.
The focus on unity is where my mind has wondered this week. The phrase “Unity in diversity” (Jha pg 1 Introduction) stuck with me. Who is included in “diversity”? What makes someone “diverse”? It seemed that there was a lot of division with this unity in diversity, and today we still qualify churches by race and geographic location… understanding what those labels mean- not White European. It troubles me that White European is still the measuring stick within our unity.
In the early development, was there room for diversity in ideas? The lecture indicated that there were struggles around music, and missions (among others) and that the Disciples were able to weather the storm and remain unified. However, today, I wonder since we have settled into who we are as a denomination, are we still are open to the diversity of ideas. From my own personal experience, I have witnessed that tension between the ideals and the practice.
I have found very little tolerance or acceptance if I mention my background and have been dismissed and scoffed at just by mentioning my evangelical upbringing. Has openness become a label for us in ideals but not practice? Have we embraced the idea of “openness” to the point of exclusion/dismissal of some?
Our history has been written from a specific point of view. Our job today is to expand, once again, to include those voices that have not been the focus and maybe change the way we label each other to bring true unity in diversity.
I'm also relatively new to the Disciples movement (2022) and learning this history for the first time. Related to your comments about "unity in diversity," I've been thinking about Rev. Jha's observation that the denomination might think of itself differently if it characterized itself as a movement founded not by "pioneers," but as a "denomination founded by immigrants." Just as the Disciples movement mirrors the historical trajectory of the U.S., this characterization of being founded by immigrants rather than pioneers would positively challenge the white supremacist foundations of this country.
"Unity in diversity"; I agree with your questions on diversity, what makes some diverse. It might be a little silly, but the way of thinking about this ideal that helps me is when I see the two words together my mind goes to university. At a university different people from different places and experiences come together with one asperation, knowledge. This helps me think of diversity not based on "other than white European" , but rather people different from one another.
Thank you, Kate. "Unity in diversity" seems like such a lovely statement until you stop and break it apart. We struggle with that word "diversity" often as humans because it seems to have personal definitions for us all, like it or not. I think that's where the main problem comes from, as you well described it. What is diversity? How are we defining it?
I am relatively new to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) tradition, having only been a member of the denomination since 2022. In beginning to learn more about the history of the movement, I’m struck by the aptness of Rev. Dr. Kinnamon’s observation that we are a “people of the paradox.” Tracing the beginnings of the movement, Dr. Brown’s comment in the lecture juxtaposing unity and division feels to me like the most overarching paradox that is still so salient today.
In many ways, the Disciples movement was founded on the desire for unity and the stripping away of the hierarchies and power structures that governed religious practice of the time. But the widespread narrative of desiring unity and the restoration of the practices of the New Testament church is an oversimplification of the realities that were at play in the Disciples movement’s earliest era. Evidence of this was described by Dr. Lisa Barnett in her lecture related to the “‘F’ word” and the denomination’s active participation in conquest moving westward into the so-called “frontier” in the 19th century. Rev. Sandhya Jha likewise illustrated this oversimplification in her critique of the claim that the church sought to be a “19th century, first-century church,” given that the realities of early America were a far cry from first-century Palestine.
But what I am perhaps most intrigued and challenged by within the paradox of unity and division is the way massive social issues of the time were downplayed and relativized in pursuit of unity over anything, even moral bravery. This was especially demonstrated by Alexander Campbell’s refusal to resolutely denounce slavery, in favor of characterizing it as a matter of opinion rather than something to be actively advocated against.
This characterization reminds me of language I have heard from contemporary Evangelical traditions related to matters of women’s leadership and the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in the life of the church. As I experienced firsthand when answering my own call to ministry, these traditions tend to characterize some theological and practical questions as “non-essential” or “not an issue of salvation.” Yet what is considered “non-essential” by some are questions of life and death – or at the very least identity – for others. The same could be said of American chattel slavery at the time Campbell refused to actively renounce it.
This way of sidestepping potential conflict has implications for ministry today as Christian communities of faith continue to wrestle with if and when to speak prophetically against injustice and the oppression of empire. In my own view of ministry, being in a position of religious authority carries with it a responsibility to speak out and speak loudly in the face of oppression. While seeking to be gracious to Campbell’s fear of division, it’s difficult not to see his decision as an act of cowardice, or at the very least, a missed opportunity to speak in favor of a marginalized population of God’s people. As Dr. Brown’s article on democracy or rule pointed out, it’s an interesting question to consider how the Disciples movement might differ if he had.
Thank you for your post. I’ve been thinking about what you said about the downplaying of the issues in pursuit of unity that you mentioned. Do you think that the Church (big C) is downplaying the social issues of today like the issue of slavery in the past? I’m not connected enough with other churches beyond my own congregation to know what the Disciples are doing about current issues (Transgender, Immigration (to name two)), and whether these issues are causing any disagreement within the Disciples as a whole. When I talk with other Disciples it seems that we align on social matters, however I’m not sure what action is being taken which may be a stronger indication about my own lack of action.
I was also struck by the line in the book about seeking to be a “19th century, first-century church” but how unrealistic this was given the stark time and place differences between the U.S. in the 19th century and Palestine in the 1st century. It makes me think about the big tension between Christian who want to stay firmly rooted in long-standing traditional ways of worship and gathering and those who are open to new ideas of worship and ministry. What does our history say about how open Disciples of Christ is to shifting realities of church and advocacy? I agree with you, Meghan, that we are responsible for speaking out loudly against oppression and at the same time I fear losing unity and community with those that think differently because of how polarizing our political climate has become. I don’t want this fear to prevent me from speaking out though, just as I am sad to hear how Campbell didn’t stand up against slavery I don’t want to regret not speaking up for what I believe because of how polarized our country continues to be over issues that affect real people and their identities.
I’ve been a Disciple for about 20 years now. I say that because while that is a good portion of my life, I still feel very new to this denomination. While some of that can be attributed to my embedded theology from my Catholic upbringing, I also feel that it’s pretty easy to attend a Disciples church without ever having to understand the history of how we became a denomination. And while I can feel that I am a part of my own congregation, I spent a great deal of time feeling separate from the denomination because I wasn’t a part of the historical context and I really didn’t know much about it. I did audit a History and Polity course two years ago and it was fascinating to me. I had just begun my work in the ministries of the church and having some context on how everything functioned and why it functioned that way helped me tremendously. I remember feeling that I wished everyone in church had taken the course or at least something similar. After beginning this course, I can see that this deeper dive is going to help even that much more.
One thing that stuck out to me (among many) after watching the videos and doing the readings, is that because we tend to remember and speak of our church through an exceptionalism lens (not completely, but it’s there!). Learning a bit more about Alexander Campbell and how the paradox of unity and diversity was well alive within him as seen in his ideals versus practice is something that I wasn’t aware of until now. Reading about how he became more moderate in how he addressed slavery because of his fear of division is something that I see still in the church today. Too often I see clergy that are afraid of speaking their theological truths because they are worried about either losing church members, losing donors, or any other things that have become too valuable to them to speak their truth or to do the work that we are truly called to do as Christians. I witnessed it in this last General Assembly. I was surprised to see that this has been a throughline of our denomination, beginning with who we consider to be our all-star founder, Alexander Campbell.
After this lesson, I am left wondering how do we bring the history along with us (the good and the bad) so that we can do our work in better ways? I look at the church now and I don’t know that we are much further along in some areas than where we were when we first started. God loves us as we are. We need to do the same and acknowledge our imperfections and the messy ways of the past and those who helped bring us here so that we can move forward into God’s promise, in better more complete ways. It’s time to swap out that exceptionalism lens.
I love your question about how we carry the good and the bad histories along with us because both feel important to learn from. I agree that learning this history has made me realize how we perhaps are not as far along as we all imagine we are. It makes me wonder what the role of education could be in creating the church we say we are. Stone and Campbell both valued education and studying religion, so what might it look like to provide wider access to education for ALL Disciples, not just clergy or a select few who have the resources or money to afford it. How could churches be more intentional spaces of education for their members and continue the legacy of our founders who believed in learning in community with others.
Erin, I felt similarly as you. I’ve been in a Disciples church for 10 years, but so many others were brought up in their church since childhood. Having an evangelical background, the Disciples seemed like an incredibly progressive movement (which I think we should honor that it is inclusive and has made great contributions to social movements). At the same time, how important for us to not just use that “exceptionalism” lens, but also learn from the past and find our own blind spots in the present.
After reading your comment about Alexander Campbell's ideals versus his practices, it brought a question to my mind. Can we ever really reach our full ideals or are we just a work in progress like he was and like everyone that came before us. I believe if we don't have an ideal to strive for, we become stagnant. I whole heartedly agree with you that we need to bring the past with us we seek a better future for all.
To begin, I am most surprised to realize how little I actually know about Disciples’ history as a lifelong Disciples and someone whose family has been apart of Disciples congregations for over five generations. While many of the people and places mentioned in the lecture, readings, and videos I might be able to (vaguely) tell someone about, many of the actual details and complicated histories were new information to me. This makes me wonder: are the majority of Disciples members, staff, and dare-I-say pastors as unfamiliar with this history as I am?
When listening to Lisa Barrett’s lecture on the “F” Word, I was grateful to hear Daisy Machado mentioned as I had the privilege to interview her last fall for a project I was doing, and her contributions to not only Latinx Disciples History but to Disciples history as a whole feel so important. Her book and many scholarly articles reshaped how I view the Frontier Myth and how it was used as moral justification to “civilize” (or violently colonize) indigenous people. Dr. Barrett’s lecture furthered complicated my view on this and how we cannot overlook the early mission efforts that treated assimilation as necessary for those who weren’t white pioneers.
The knowledge I gained from this week’s content feels significant for my personal faith because it reminds me that Disciples have never been a monolithic group. As “people of the paradox” we have long existed in the gray space where there is the need for conversations, listening, personal study, and healthy debate. The introduction and chapter 1 of Sandhya Jha’s book also helped me realize that there are many histories we must spend time uncovering, not just the most dominant (i.e. white) history.
The main tension I am wrestling with is the reality that we are a mainline protestant denomination, despite our founders’ initial desires to reject denominational ties. I remain hopeful that we are living into our call for Christian unity through our “full communion” and our shared Global Ministries with the United Church of Christ. I am also grateful to see that we as Disciples recently entered dialogue with the Presbyterian Church (USA) about the possibility of full communion. I do think it’s a bit ironic though considering Stone broke away from the Presbyterians but, in the pursuit of Christian unity, I am curious to see how ecumenism functions in today’s world when Christianity continues to seem more and more divided. I feel grateful that Disciples to be deeply engaged in ecumenical dialogues across the country and world, and believe both Campbell and Stone might see it as a worthy pursuit.
Finally, I am curious how Disciples history might be introduced to local church members who are seeking deeper connection to their faiths and perhaps are unaware of the larger Disciples history and community. As I begin my year of field education working in children’s ministry during my M.Div., I’m curious if there is a way to incorporate some age-appropriate Disciples history into my curriculum for my congregation’s children and youth.
I had a similar thought. How do we bring some of this more complete history to our local churches. It was funny when Dr Brown sent out the “trading cards” (for lack of a better term), my kids got to them first, and wanted me to read to them about some of our church leaders of the past. I think it’s a great way to start introducing some of our theological history to our youth.
Hi Anna - thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've also been spending some time thinking about the irony of the 'movement' becoming a denomination in 1968. I have certainly known for a long time that our congregational polity doesn't operate the same way as other, more authoritative denominational structures. So I've sort of thought of the CC(DOC) as an exception among most denominations in the sense that we are less hierarchical, more cooperative, more open to ecumenism than many others. But having read Dr. Brown's essay on 'democracy or rule' I wonder how much euro-centric, white supremecist, social/educational hierarchy is built into our structures and not as visible, either because it has been deliberately cloaked or because many of us don't 'have eyes to see' it? Certainly we have room to improve and grow toward greater equity, wider inclusion, and deeper transformation! I'd be willing to sacrifice some unity in order for more people to feel safe and welcome and loved within our fellowship.
I often consider the Disciples movement to be more progressive or inclusive than most of the other faith traditions I’ve been a part of in my past. But this week opened my eyes to a more nuanced and complex view of the history of this denomination. I find myself wrestling with the idea that the movement valued church unity over taking a more just stand on the issue of slavery. I had a conversation with Rev Mary Kearns at First Christian Chico this week about it, and she made a point that “we have a general minister, not a pope” and reinforced the idea that when our denomination “takes a stand” on an issue, it’s typically driven by local congregations and a consensus that bubbles up to the regional and national church. But what do we do then, when there are issues of faith that may not yet “have consensus”. I think about the way our transgender siblings, or immigrants are treated in society today. Should we really have to “build a majority” to stand on these issues of social justice? I guess the alternative view would be “orders” from the top down, which is exactly what Dr Browns article this week was referring to in “Democracy or Rule”. But at the same time, that also frees local congregations to pick up social issues revenant to their communities and local contexts. So I see some of these tensions and challenges between our ideals of liberty and egalitarianism, but also the need for justice and equity for disenfranchised people.
Hi Max - thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I agree that there's a weird tension between how I think of the DOC today (mostly progressive and on the leading edge of some social issues) and the shadowy legacy of some parts of our history. There have been times when I've been forced to realize that there are many parts of denomination - many congregations or regions - that don't reflect the church I'm most familiar with. There is a pretty wide range of beliefs and practices across the church. And I've been frustrated by how much time it has taken for certain issues to come to the forefront or have any resolution. For instance - for a long time our Region (CCNC-N) was the only one that would ordain out LGBTIA+ clergy. This is no longer the case and the trend toward more openness on this issue is gaining momentum. But sometimes it feels so s-l-o-w!
The flip side of this is something I do value though: a previous pastor taught me as I youth that the process of how change is sought and decisions are made can be just as or more important than the final outcome. Giving people the opportunity to feel heard, giving God time to work in people's hearts, acting in compassion for people's experiences does go a long way toward moving the church forward. Also frustrating and s-l-o-w! But hard to dismiss as a valuable truth if we desire to stand firm together in our values.
Wow, I really enjoyed all of the readings and videos for the course this week! The timing of this course with its overlap with GA and a summer focus on DOC identity in my congregation makes for a great opportunity for me to both draw some important connections across experiences and also share what I’m learning with the church.
The two lectures from the DCHC Kirkpatrick conference were both very illuminating for me. Learning about the evolution of historiography as it applies to the ‘western frontier’ in North America was fascinating. Traditional telling of our denomination’s history really leaves out a lot of realities that should not be ignored. The intertwining of our story with American exceptionalism, euro-centric racial dominance, and the extractive/colonial movement of Manifest Destiny are rarely highlighted - yet now that it’s been made explicit, it will be difficult for me to forget.
I grew up as a Disciple in WA state and have known about the Yakima Christian Mission for a long time. I’ve even heard Dave Bell speak more than once before now! But hearing more details about the history of how it was explicitly established as a Native American boarding school, coupled with the ignorance of its white administrators was a pretty stark reality check in terms of how undeniably racist that whole project was from the start. As a parent, foster-parent, pastor, and social worker it also really hit my gut to hear Dave’s analysis of the ways Adverse Childhood Experiences and epigenetics affect all those who were sent to the school as students or foster children. What a disastrous legacy of harm!
Something I’m still thinking about is the suggestion Dave made at the end of his lecture: that reconciliation can only start after many, many years of reparations. I can’t disagree with that at all. And I’m so curious to hear more from Dave and others who work in this area of Indigenous justice to understand their needs. What should reparations look like? (I’m always a big fan of just giving people money to make up for economic disadvantages that have been thrust upon them…) What would right relationship look like today? And how do we get our whole church to learn about the issues and get on board with taking responsibility to make things right?
Thank you for bringing up Dave's point. That really resonates with my own inner search. Reparations are meant to be an act of making amends for historical or systemic injustices. However, I am very pessimistic because nothing can ever fully compensate for what was destroyed, especially in the context of the US being a dominant world power. It is extremely difficult for the winning side to truly apologize when they are still reaping hidden benefits under the table. Perhaps Americans should learn from outside of our own context and study what Germany and Japan did after World War II.
Sara, I appreciate your response regarding ACEs and potential/probability for harm with the boarding school. I, too, am a foster and adoptive parent and was a traininer and county coordinator for The CALL in Arkansas for 6 years where I focused on training foster and adoptive parents. I have to really remind myself that much ministry was doing the best they understood how to do at the time. We have so much more research and understanding and better practices now than they did 100 years ago. But yes, I agree it was hard to read that! I'm from Arkansas, and right next door in Oklahoma there are similar painful examples of boarding schools that either purposefully or inadvertendly worked to strip Native American children of their embrace of original culture.
Ching-Hsin (Steven) Han
What surprised, challenged, or complicated your previous understanding of Disciples history?
What surprised me is knowing that the DOC is counted as the first American-founded denomination. What even amazes me is the unity on the slavery issue, while it was still in a movement stage between autonomous congregations. From the reading, white Disciples and black Disciples, though emerging differently, shared common ground and walked together through a worship format that was neither flashy nor overly emotional. That piece seems missing from my limited experience.
What questions are you still carrying after engaging this week’s materials?
Though the undivided fact is there, the answer of why they did not split is still unknown to me. It seems that holding the value of the movement and the essence of diversity are key factors, which to me are all spiritual elements. However, I’m still looking forward to (though it is probably impossible) experiencing the DOC ancestors’ glue that tied them together.
Where do you see tensions between Disciples ideals and Disciples practice?
Today we face the significant challenges with dealing with social and political issues, such as Christian Nationalism, immigrant issues, and economic justices. Unlike the forefathers who focus on the church responsibilities, that is using spiritual power (church as a home) to provide a way or a witness to the society. Nowadays we tend to, or are seen, as a active/progressive social movement. It’s good. However, it seems to me the spiritual argument, theological foundation, and practices are not strong enough. Today we have strong practice in action. What makes Disciples Disciples is still vague. And the linkage between our ideals and practice is weak.
Steven, your mention of thinking about DOC as the first denomination created on American soil prompted me to share. I had known this for many years, but for some reason it got the wheels turning in my mind thinking, "What other denominations also found their start here in the United States?" Well, that took me down a 20-30 minute rabbit hole reading about Assembly of God, AME, Foursquare, and more who also originated here! It was actually quite interesting! And being our nation's 250th anniversary was just a few weeks back, really we're quite a young country...compartively speaking! In the reading, Jha states Stemmler, "The kind of religion embraced by ...Campbell and ...Stone would not have been possible anywhere except in a new world where there were no precedents, no good 'ol days to imitate..."
Erin Aylor
July 20th 2026
Week 1
One Important Thing Learned
Even with the best intentions, it is easy to gloss over some of the harder facts of the Disciples history in the US. I’m actually taking this course as a refresher. I completed my Course of Study at Phillips Theological Seminary back in ~2020. Sadly, I don’t remember much of anything dealing with race relations and historical info as is noted so far from this small but powerful resource of a book. No shade to PTS; we had a huge historical book as the textbook. But already, I feel this course is honoring the nitty-gritty margins of information others may leave behind. And speaking of margins, the YouTube video (Dr. Lisa) about frontier and “edge of savagery” really got me thinking.
Something From This Period Bearing Significance Locally
Here in Russellville, Arkansas there are two Disciples of Christ churches. One is First Christian Church where I pastor, and the other is Central Christian Church. The two churches are less than a 2-minute drive apart. First Christian Church is on the National Register of Historic Places, yet sadly our congregation has dwindled to ~12-20 on an average Sunday in a building that holds 200+. Central Christian Church has only Black members and is down to about 5-10 attendees on an average Sunday (including the pastor, her brother the worship leader, and the assistant pastor). It is located in the historically Black part of town and holds its own merit as one of the oldest continuous churches in Arkansas. If we strive for unity as a denomination, why 2 churches (one White and one Black) and not just one? Yes, over the years there have been a handful of members of color at FCC, but it’s mostly White. Although these 2 churches are not related in their founding, it was sad to note that in multiple instances in the US, a White church had to be the “parent church” of many a Black church versus having full and beautiful autonomy from the beginning.
Whose Stories Are Significant To Remember
I read both Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 continuously, and whose story was significant in my mind were those Mexican-Americans (Tejanos) in SanAntonio that were bypassed for mission/ministry/outreach work as Disciples were preparing for real mission work in Mexico! Just as today, our mission field is always right here…2 steps in front of us and whomever may be standing there.