Assignment | Lesson Three | Tracing the twentieth century move toward denominational identity

I was very appreciative of this week’s lesson because I really needed to see the more actionable shift into how we got to where we are today as Disciples. I know that I had learned of the events of 1968 prior to this course but it didn’t really hit me until the lecture how recent that really was and how new our denomination is, relatively speaking. I think that part of that is my Catholic upbringing. Growing up in a faith tradition that is so deeply rooted with a long history makes me just assume that most other faiths are similar and it’s never really a question that I would have thought to ask when I started worshipping at First Christian Church North Hollywood. “Hey guys, this place is cool, but like how long have you all been a denomination?”

I was pleasantly surprised by the resiliency and continued faith of our church to continue on and function after the death of Alexander Campbell. We covered the time around his death and a little into the years beyond it in our last lesson, but moving deeper into the 1900’s and showing that the work continued beyond is true testimony that the acceptance of his movement and work (along with the others of the time) was about something greater than him as a person. I wasn’t surprised that it happened, but it didn’t seem to have the typical challenges that other institutions, faiths, organizations, have when the person who was so directly tied and involved to the origin and inner workings of the institutions they serve are no longer there. It could have been so ugly and yet, it wasn’t. 

I was challenged and a bit disheartened to know that some of the ideals for the original design aren’t necessarily being lived out today in the way that they were envisioned. I think in some ways that they are (structurally), but my work in general church ministries has shown that we have an extremely large opportunity to work together in more collaborative ways than we are doing. Partnership and shared programs should be easier than they are. I’m beginning to see a bit of shift in this area but we have a long way to go.

One side note as I was reading the Design…it still has the old voting delegate info as well as the biennial schedule for assembly. There’s a link to the adopted one on the page but I’m not sure why the old one is up as we aren’t working under that one anymore. 

The extensive history of how NAPAD came to be really put into perspective all of the work and things that needed to happen for it to come to be. It gave me a greater realization of how important it is to take some time to learn more about our ministries and groups and their history so that I can bring their context into my conversations with them. Dr. Lee’s lecture along with Sandhya Jha’s book also gave me more knowledge about the challenges of citizenship for the Asian community and its complexities that I wasn’t completely aware of. 

Overall, this lesson put into perspective for me how the Disciples are generally willing to change. It might seem slow, because we do move at church speed, but we don’t sit still. We’ve done a lot to shift since our inception into ways that work within the world we are living in. The world is changing and our response has to be able to change with it.

One thing I found interesting this week was Dr. Brown’s observation that in the early movement, the Bible had functioned like a constitution for the Disciples. Because there was a shared belief that it was a straightforward text with easy-to-discern truths and clear, historical representations of the early church, it was assumed that it could produce neutral and uniform ideas for how the modern church ought to be governed. It was both the ‘source and pattern’ for how the movement should function and be organized.

Then, as historical criticism developed and rose in prominence as a method of interpreting the Bible, these assumptions about unity in interpretation started to fall apart. I didn’t realize how this would challenge the fundamental goals of the restoration movement - to coalesce in unity around the assumed truths of the scripture. Suddenly, with more information and broader interpretations it became very challenging to expect that everyone could read the same scripture and come up with the same understanding.

What’s funny is that as I was raised within the Disciples of Christ, it was always emphasized to me that everyone should follow their conscience, use available information, and trust God’s guidance in interpretation of the scripture – fully expecting that people’s understandings would differ, and accepting the ‘liberty’ that this pattern represents; that we are not held to uphold certain beliefs over others as long as we each interpret faithfully. What a turnaround from the original movement! 

I can see how this academic and intellectual shift in interpretation would have caused some big divides between people - emphasizing unity/restoration on the one hand and liberty on the other - both important values within the movement, but at odds with each other here. It’s clear to me that whatever ‘splits’ or separations happened over this issue, I was raised within the more liberal stream of interpretive practice.

I think the material that struck me the most and will stay with me is Dr. Lawrence Burnley’s presentation at the Kirkpatrick Lectures. Not only did he lay out a very thoughtful and convincing/convicting outline of how white supremacy culture is taught as a core part of the hidden curriculum in public and private education across the US - he also lifted up how insidious it is within our own institutions of theological education. I will be reflecting on this question about how to deconstruct the damage done by racist education systems for a good while. He offered a powerful demand: “This must end!!” and I couldn’t agree with him more. 

I am one of the scholars he was talking about who excelled in academics and received a ‘world class’ education but graduated with multiple degrees without ever learning about (or only minimally being exposed to) huge swaths of material - history, literature, philosophy, culture - that come from historically marginalized and melanated people. This is something I’ve thought about a lot as I’ve had ‘a-ha’ moments well into adulthood that seem like I should have had much earlier in life! And I continue to seek out voices of leaders and educators and writers who can help me fill in the gaps of my education. He linked this practice perfectly to current policies aimed at deconstructing DEI and CRT initiatives…which only goes to prove his point that this hidden curriculum is still going strong. It's institutional racism that causes the most harm to all of us…how do we join in the resistance movement so that we can all see ourselves and one another more clearly through eyes of love?

I recently came across a novel by my favorite mystery author, written in a Choose Your Own Adventure style- a genre not usually written for anyone over the age of 12. I had to take a look. I chose every adventure possible, and the heroine died in all but two endings.  

After consuming all the material for this week, I felt like I was in a Choose Your Own Adventure Novel- all with disappointing/unflattering endings- when it came to writing my reflection.  I was unsure what direction to follow. Option 1- The Splits of the Denomination? 2- Lawrence Burnley’s Reflections on the Educational System?  3- What is Church Membership? 4- The Formalization of the Denomination? 5- Japanese Disciples Losing Their Property After Internment? Or 6- The Need of Bridge Congregations until Assimilation?

None of these had a positive ending or outcome (with the exception of maybe Option 4- the Formalization of the Denomination). I’m disheartened by the clinging to the ideologies of the centuries before. Manifest Destiny, the Doctrine of Discovery, the Civilization of the “Savages” were all still at work… except on a diet or “lite”. Property was still taken; Groups were still forced to assimilate to the dominate culture; and In and Out Groups were still present.  Ugh!!!!

Option 3: My experience around “Membership” is strained. In my twenties, the first DOC Church that I attended was growing. Each week someone new became a member. After a few weeks, the pastor approached to me saying “We’re on a roll and I don’t have anyone lined up to join next week. I need to keep my numbers up. Would you be willing to join?”. My response was that I was not ready to join and wouldn’t be coming forward. The next Sunday, at the end of the service, it was announced that I had spoken with the pastor, wanted to become a member, but “was not comfortable coming forward” I was then given a hardy welcome into fold. “Membership” lost all meaning for me.

My current congregation (on staff and 14 years in attendance) is grappling with the idea of membership as well. We are in discernment about next steps as we are declining in attendance. I understand that there needs to be criteria around who gets a vote/say, and “membership” seems to be one way to identify those qualified for a voice. However, I am not a member, and have experienced some pressure with “what’s the problem” and “why don’t you just join?” So I find myself digging in my heels.

Membership is problematic for me as it seems to promote an exclusivity which touches on many of the themes highlighted in our readings/videos this week. They way we teach and qualify education is Euro-centric, dismissing most of the world’s knowledge. The creation of “Bridge Congregations” until members can be assimilated not only ignores history and culture, but it, once again, erases those cultures. There is still a power imbalance in the Church which is perpetuated by how things are (and have been) done.

Not to sound trite or pedestrian but given the history and all the choices made by the Disciples in the past… and perhaps still being made, wouldn’t it be great if we could acknowledge all that has happened and do our best to address those harms,… then turn the page, and choose another direction? I know we can do better.

As this week’s lecture, videos, and readings demonstrated, the 20th century saw tremendous shifts toward the development of the Disciples’ denominational identity. What is perhaps most interesting to me in light of what I’ve learned this week is the way core values of the early movement evolved in the 20th century as structures became more institutionalized. 

As one example, I’m curious what was potentially lost from the Stone-Campbell movement’s early emphasis on ordinary Christians governing and reading scripture for themselves with the move toward the professionalization of ministry in the late-19th and early 20th century. How did this signify a potential move away from valuing the perspectives and interpretations of diverse voices – both those with formal education and those without? How are our churches today grappling with a de-valuing of the voices of laity in deference to educated and ordained clergy? This deference is a challenge I’ve witnessed in every church I’ve been part of or worked with across multiple Protestant denominations. We are missing something essential about being the body of Christ as a result.

I also wonder how the greater emphasis on education, more modern approaches to scripture interpretation, and institutionalization of church structures led to the formation of a dominant perspective (read: white) on what it means to be “Disciples.” In this week’s chapters from “Room at the Table,” I see common themes of assimilation and acculturation under the guise of Christian unity in the way various communities of color were thought of in the mid-20th century. Jha paints this in sharp relief when describing the history of the growth of Latine and Hispanic Disciples congregations. As she explains, the emphasis on creating “bridge congregations” of Hispanics was a strategic choice that “would help Latino immigrants ‘cross over’ into the dominant culture” (Jha, 71). Rev. Tim Lee described similar tensions in his lecture about how Asian Disciples were both included and subsequently excluded by denominational structures historically. 

While it might be easy to feel discouraged by the racism and troubled history of the Disciples movement, I find great hope in the design of the Christian Church and what I learned about Restructure this week. The “Design of the Christian Church” document feels aspirational with its emphasis on ecumenical collaboration and broad understanding of the ekklesia wherein “each Christian fulfills her or his own calling as a servant of Christ sent into the world to minister.” On a personal note, I’m enrolled in this course as a requirement for the ordination process. The design of the Church laid out in the Restructure resonates deeply with my own understanding of the Church when we are at our best.

Ching-Hsin (Steven) Han

Chapter 5 of Jha’s book is critical. It reveals the complex issues between White, Black, and Spanish-speaking Disciples from 1950-1975. Rereading The Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is again very reflective.

What happened to the Japanese churches during WWII keeps haunting me. Many faithful believers, ministers, and churches tried their best to support Japanese congregations and individuals during the war. Unfortunately, the overall result was still devastating. That unstoppable tragedy deeply depresses me.

I am Taiwanese, an ethnic Chinese from Taiwan, a place where the People’s Republic of China claims ownership and where many Chinese people believe we are part of them. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, I have never felt so close to war, forced identity by others, the insecurity caused by microaggression, and uncertainty about the future. This is the consequence of living in the US, where a vocal majority embraces the idea of "Making America Great Again" by votes. To me, the slogan sums up everything: the conflict between the US and China, current war against Iran, the idea of a "real" (and likely White) American, Christian Nationalism, and polarized left-wing or right-wing labeling.

How do most Americans see ethnic Chinese? I am not from China, but no one can tell the difference. I bear the consequences of a history I had no part in making. What if China invades Taiwan? I would probably resign from my current position because 80% of my congregation is from China. We cannot realistically expect a Ukrainian clergy to pastor a Russian immigrant church. Though there won’t be any internment camps, what if immigration policies become even worse and more hostile? My family and I might be forced to leave, or we may choose to move away from a place I have grown to love and a place my two minor boys already identify as home. The personal reality strikes and shakes my faith, making me realize, “I am no better than my ancestors” (1 Kings 19:4).

The tension between what the Disciples claim to be and what the Disciples actually practice remains at all levels: general, regional, and congregational. This is not because we are not doing enough. It is just the impasse we face. We fight for justice while still having to follow current regulations and laws. We walk alongside the oppressed, but we cannot take on their responsibilities for them, lest it backfire. We empower people, yet the empowered must still stand strong on their own. I feel that the real tension rests on how much further we should go. That has always been, and will always be, the boundary of our conscience and the inescapable suffering we must learn to endure.

Erin Aylor

July 25th, 2026

Week 3

One important thing learned from this week’s materials…

I found it very sad on pg 71 regarding the Latino churches that were being formed as “bridge churches” where acculturation can take place…like it needed to take place!  Instead of celebrating and supporting these churches in their various expressions, they were pressed to be “normal” congregations.  I’m glad Disciples have gotten away from this modus operandi from what I can see. 

Where do I see tensions between DOC ideals and practice?

I see tension in the history of women preaching the Word and being leaders in the DOC…being recognized as fully equal to men.  And surely, even more so with sisters in Christ who were a minority ethnicity.  Professor Brown shared, “...women were central to this expansion…to Disciples new understanding of mission…women helped Disciples become more institutionally connected and socially engaged.They did so even when the church did not fully recognize their authority or leadership…one of the tensions of this time…women’s leadership was indispensable to Disciples mission during this time but often they were not recognized in ways that they deserved…equality in ministry and governance of the church came slowly and unevenly..”  The same can be said for those of color, especially those in historically Black congregations as well as those of Japanese and Native American heritage.

Questions I’m still carrying after studying this week’s materials…

How did people begin living in the church building of the Japanese Christian Church (pg 58) and through what periods was this the case? Interesting!  Was it always planned that ⅓ of the church would be residential housing?  Was there 100% attendance from those who lived in the apartments? Do any DOC churches today have something similar to this?  Could DOC churches today have something similar to this?  I know there are so many building codes and ordinances and such, but there are THOUSANDS of basically empty churches all across the US. Some only have people in them 2-5 hours per week.  How is that space being used otherwise?  I was just so appreciative reading this part that the building was being put to good use, but it was also quite sad to read of its closing (and even worse the way Japanese folks were treated during WW II.

This week's readings and videos mostly had the same affect on me as the previous two, disappointment. It also made me realize why a course like this is needed for our shared ministries. I keep waiting for the part in our history where we start living into our ideals. Is true unity in diversity even possible? Male dominated language, treating persons that speak different languages as inferior, and of course skin tone as a judge of ones place in the world. I couldn't believe how recent all of this was and is still happening.

I've spent the past two weeks with two different groups of youth. One week on the west side of Washington, Gwinwood retreat center, and the second at Cane Ridge West, in close to the middle of Montana. Two very different locations but with similar stories told at each camp. Stories of discrimination, stories of exclusion, and stories of pain. I expect this from the world out side our denomination, but the stories were from Disciples churches. I recognize how far we have come, but also see how far we still have to go till we can say “ we are who we claim to be".

There is hope for us yet. Seeing youth come together from all walks of life and backgrounds and some how forming a working loving community in just a week, is encouraging. However we can't expect that out come when the fears and challenges of the world are all around. I believe the best we can do is learn from our past failures and try not to repeat them. Continue to strive for our ideals, and to keep inviting people to the table the way they are and truly except that they are children of God as are

we.

I had never sat down and read the entire Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) before, but I found it fascinating and enlightening. I know the document has been amended over the years, but it was interesting to read it in its current form and put the actual document into conversation with what I have witnessed in Disciples congregations, regions, and general ministries. The denomination really is a giant web of relationships and moving parts. It can sometimes feel complicated or even confusing, but I appreciate that the Design describes our relationships as a “covenant.” That language suggests that we are connected not simply through an organizational structure, but through promises, responsibilities, and a shared commitment to one another.

This week, I was also struck by the diversity of Disciples history and by how difficult some Latinx stories are to find. I am grateful for Lori Tapia’s lecture and for the opportunity to learn about her leadership as the first woman to serve in her role. Her story seems especially important to remember, both because of the work she has done and because representation within denominational leadership matters. I was also fascinated by what I learned about Puerto Rico’s role in the movement. I have a Disciples professor who is Puerto Rican, but I had no idea about the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)’s complex history and relationship with Puerto Rico. Learning this context complicated my understanding of the denomination and reminded me that our stated ideals of unity, equality, and covenant have not always been fully reflected in our practices.

I am left thinking about my own ancestors who were part of Disciples congregations. Five generations ago, the church must have looked very different from the church I know and love today. My grandparents were ordained in the 1960s, during a significant period of transition in the denomination. I wish they were still alive so I could ask them how they experienced those changes as young ministers leaving seminary. I wonder how the church they entered differed from the congregations in which they had grown up, and whether the changes felt hopeful, unsettling, or perhaps both. Their absence leaves me carrying questions about how denominational history is experienced not only through official documents and institutional decisions, but through the lives of ordinary ministers, families, and congregations.

Even as the church moved into the 20th century, and started to find it's institutional growth and formation, you can still see splinters that affect the way that people worship and collect themselves. This is true of the Hispanic members of the Disciples. Because the ministry was imported rather than organically grown from within the community causing tensions in the Hispanic communities in addition to white churches (Tapia). The same pattern occurs in Puerto Rico, with the charismatic movements and disagreements over the Vietnam War. (Wiki). So over time, we see this movement that's goal was unity, but being pulled apart by both theological and cultural disagreements. I'm starting to connect this common them with where we are today. Most Disciples I know are opposed to Christian nationalism, for example, but the broader Christian movement is deeply divided on this issue. Even within our Disciples congregations, there are divisions that are both blatantly obvious and more subtext regarding sexuality, gender identity, and socioeconomic issues. I know in my congregation, there are some of the elder congregants who express some frustration with our unhoused population, whereas a good majority of the church desires to do outreach, support, and show compassion to these individuals. It's not the kind of tension that will cause a schism in the church, but it is a tension that pulls at "unity". But I also think that even when we are not in full agreement on all issues, there is a covenantal relationship for the direction of the church. I spent some of my early adult years practicing in the Catholic church, and the Roman Catholic church has so much structure and direction from tradition and hierarchy. I believe that even if our movement isn't perfect (no man-made institution is), it is adaptable to change to meet the needs of folks. This has encouraged me to try integrating some of these conversations about justice, and who is being included/excluded into the structure of our congregation's board. It seems natural to engage church leadership on these issues in addition to the other administrative and ministry work we are doing.