Church Rules as Monastic Rule

[SQLservant]

Yet another silly speculation from me; just what you've always wanted!

For conservative evangelical churches which have rules and standards as conditions of membership (e.g., no drinking, smoking, dancing, or TV), I've had the thought that one must approach them in the same way as monastic rules: codes of conduct meant to help cultivate a certain type of relationship with God.

Almost immediately, however, I contest myself by saying that these rules often classify these things as evil of themselves, or if not, too close to evil to allow. Further, talk of "testimony" is often found, where monastic rules (to my knowledge) are not about showing sanctity to the outside, but rather cultivating it on the inside.

What do you think?

 

[Nanopants]

That's interesting...

Being a former student of martial arts I tend to think of monasteries in that context. If I ever disobeyed my old sensei's rules I'd be sure to get a harsh sentence of push ups, sit ups, and other various penalties. It was mostly about self-discipline and it served a purpose, but it wasn't about giving us permission to go and beat up anyone who didn't obey our dojo's standards. On the other hand, I think church rules can get blown way out of perspective, and in a way that's harmful mostly for the members of those churches.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yet another silly speculation from me; just what you've always wanted!

For conservative evangelical churches which have rules and standards as conditions of membership (e.g., no drinking, smoking, dancing, or TV), I've had the thought that one must approach them in the same way as monastic rules: codes of conduct meant to help cultivate a certain type of relationship with God.

Almost immediately, however, I contest myself by saying that these rules often classify these things as evil of themselves, or if not, too close to evil to allow. Further, talk of "testimony" is often found, where monastic rules (to my knowledge) are not about showing sanctity to the outside, but rather cultivating it on the inside.

What do you think?

Interesting observation.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Yet another silly speculation from me; just what you've always wanted!

For conservative evangelical churches which have rules and standards as conditions of membership (e.g., no drinking, smoking, dancing, or TV), I've had the thought that one must approach them in the same way as monastic rules: codes of conduct meant to help cultivate a certain type of relationship with God.

Almost immediately, however, I contest myself by saying that these rules often classify these things as evil of themselves, or if not, too close to evil to allow. Further, talk of "testimony" is often found, where monastic rules (to my knowledge) are not about showing sanctity to the outside, but rather cultivating it on the inside.

What do you think?

Glad I am not a ‘member’ of these man made churches.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Glad I am not a ‘member’ of these man made churches.

So what God-made church are you a member of?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So what God-made church are you a member of?

Good response GCC!

 

[Partaker of Christ]

So what God-made church are you a member of?

There is only one Church, The Church, the Body of Christ.

the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

There is only one Church, The Church, the Body of Christ.

the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Yes, and that one church has a visible, institutional face: the body of believers meeting to hear God's word proclaimed as law and gospel, and celebrated together the communion of saints and the forgiveness of sins in the sacraments of baptism and communion. That visible, institutional face isn't unified here on earth, but it is present wherever believers come together in word and sacrament. So which visible, institutional face sponsors the manifestation of the invisible, mystical body in word and sacrament?

For me, it's Bethlehem Lutheran Church, a member congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. For others it might be St. Rose of Lima, a parish of the (Roman) Catholic Church. For others it might be Boyds Presbyterian Church, a member congregation of the Presbyterian Church-USA. And for others, it may be St. Paul's Orthodox Church, a member of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

All the above local churches proclaim the word and celebrate the sacraments in some capacity, and so make manifest the invisible, mystical body of Christ for their members. But they do so through visible, institutional means that sponsor their fellowship, and we are indeed called to just that sort of fellowship: full participation in parish life and its regular celebration of Christ's feast of victory, the Sunday service of holy communion. Without that, the invisible, mystical body of Christ remains merely potential and is never brought to fullness.

 

[Tangible]

Yes, and that one church has a visible, institutional face: the body of believers meeting to hear God's word proclaimed as law and gospel, and celebrated together the communion of saints and the forgiveness of sins in the sacraments of baptism and communion. That visible, institutional face isn't unified here on earth, but it is present wherever believers come together in word and sacrament. So which visible, institutional face sponsors the manifestation of the invisible, mystical body in word and sacrament?

For me, it's Bethlehem Lutheran Church, a member congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. For others it might be St. Rose of Lima, a parish of the (Roman) Catholic Church. For others it might be Boyds Presbyterian Church, a member congregation of the Presbyterian Church-USA. And for others, it may be St. Paul's Orthodox Church, a member of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

All the above local churches proclaim the word and celebrate the sacraments in some capacity, and so make manifest the invisible, mystical body of Christ for their members. But they do so through visible, institutional means that sponsor their fellowship, and we are indeed called to just that sort of fellowship: full participation in parish life and its regular celebration of Christ's feast of victory, the Sunday service of holy communion. Without that, the invisible, mystical body of Christ remains merely potential and is never brought to fullness.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, and that one church has a visible, institutional face: the body of believers meeting to hear God's word proclaimed as law and gospel, and celebrated together the communion of saints and the forgiveness of sins in the sacraments of baptism and communion. That visible, institutional face isn't unified here on earth, but it is present wherever believers come together in word and sacrament. So which visible, institutional face sponsors the manifestation of the invisible, mystical body in word and sacrament?

For me, it's Bethlehem Lutheran Church, a member congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. For others it might be St. Rose of Lima, a parish of the (Roman) Catholic Church. For others it might be Boyds Presbyterian Church, a member congregation of the Presbyterian Church-USA. And for others, it may be St. Paul's Orthodox Church, a member of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

All the above local churches proclaim the word and celebrate the sacraments in some capacity, and so make manifest the invisible, mystical body of Christ for their members. But they do so through visible, institutional means that sponsor their fellowship, and we are indeed called to just that sort of fellowship: full participation in parish life and its regular celebration of Christ's feast of victory, the Sunday service of holy communion. Without that, the invisible, mystical body of Christ remains merely potential and is never brought to fullness.

From the Catechism:

This is most certainly true.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Yes, and that one church has a visible, institutional face: the body of believers meeting to hear God's word proclaimed as law and gospel, and celebrated together the communion of saints and the forgiveness of sins in the sacraments of baptism and communion. That visible, institutional face isn't unified here on earth, but it is present wherever believers come together in word and sacrament. So which visible, institutional face sponsors the manifestation of the invisible, mystical body in word and sacrament?

For me, it's Bethlehem Lutheran Church, a member congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. For others it might be St. Rose of Lima, a parish of the (Roman) Catholic Church. For others it might be Boyds Presbyterian Church, a member congregation of the Presbyterian Church-USA. And for others, it may be St. Paul's Orthodox Church, a member of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

All the above local churches proclaim the word and celebrate the sacraments in some capacity, and so make manifest the invisible, mystical body of Christ for their members. But they do so through visible, institutional means that sponsor their fellowship, and we are indeed called to just that sort of fellowship: full participation in parish life and its regular celebration of Christ's feast of victory, the Sunday service of holy communion. Without that, the invisible, mystical body of Christ remains merely potential and is never brought to fullness.

Thanks, but I will stick with what the scriptures tell us.

I don’t find any of these many so called ‘types’ of churches in scripture, so they hold no authority if not scriptural.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks, but I will stick with what the scriptures tell us.

I don’t find any of these many so called ‘types’ of churches in scripture, so they hold no authority if not scriptural.

Seriously? I wrote all that and you're not even going to reply?

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is only one Church, The Church, the Body of Christ.

the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

One is gratified to read such a wonderful assessment of God's goodness in giving to his people his one, holy Catholic, and apostolic church.

I congratulate you on your membership in her.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yet another silly speculation from me; just what you've always wanted!

For conservative evangelical churches which have rules and standards as conditions of membership (e.g., no drinking, smoking, dancing, or TV), I've had the thought that one must approach them in the same way as monastic rules: codes of conduct meant to help cultivate a certain type of relationship with God.

Almost immediately, however, I contest myself by saying that these rules often classify these things as evil of themselves, or if not, too close to evil to allow. Further, talk of "testimony" is often found, where monastic rules (to my knowledge) are not about showing sanctity to the outside, but rather cultivating it on the inside.

What do you think?

Your thought is interesting. Have you read the Rule of Saint Benedict?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Your thought is interesting. Have you read the Rule of Saint Benedict?

Fun note: I took a course in seminary on western medieval monasticism from its origins in the east to the dissolution of the monasteries (though we did peek forward by reading the Jesuit Rule of Ignatius Loyola), and basically all us Lutherans came out of the class with a much more positive view of monasticism. Becoming familiar with the tradition itself helped us understand both why it exists, why the sixteenth century reformers thought it unreformable, and why it probably can be reformed (and has been).

 

[Merrily]

Yet another silly speculation from me; just what you've always wanted!

For conservative evangelical churches which have rules and standards as conditions of membership (e.g., no drinking, smoking, dancing, or TV), I've had the thought that one must approach them in the same way as monastic rules: codes of conduct meant to help cultivate a certain type of relationship with God.

Almost immediately, however, I contest myself by saying that these rules often classify these things as evil of themselves, or if not, too close to evil to allow. Further, talk of "testimony" is often found, where monastic rules (to my knowledge) are not about showing sanctity to the outside, but rather cultivating it on the inside.

What do you think?

Most monastic rules are based around the Rule of St Benedict which was pretty prescriptive.
Each order tends to have its own focus though.
Close by us to the north we have Mount Saint Bernard Abbey Cistercian monastery where they are very old school and about the same distance away to the south-east there's Willen Priory ( The Well at Willen) where they do things very differently.
God's in both places.

 

[Willie T]

Why would someone worry, one way or another, about a church with a bunch of rules?

 

[Merrily]

Yep.
There's only one church and that's made up of all believers in Christ.
Doesn't matter a jot what denominational name is on the signboard outside the building.
That fact somehow seems to cause offence to some believers.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yep.
There's only one church and that's made up of all believers in Christ.
Doesn't matter a jot what denominational name is on the signboard outside the building.
That fact somehow seems to cause offence to some believers.

So it doesn't matter if the sign says Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?