The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

SwordmanJr · Jul 28, 2019

While listening to AFR (American Family Radio) yesterday, the program at the time had some dudes talking about the alleged superiority of the institutional model compared to meeting in homes, out in a park, coffee shop, a forest, et al. I numbered my the points for ease of reference.

Some points they made were the following:

1) They assumed that the orchestrated form of what they call "corporate worship" is itself superior.

2) They assumed that historic and the modern sermon (teaching, rhetoric) is superior to merely meeting and sharing with others, in that to do so any grouping needs to be overseen by one who is "ordained" by some man-made institution of higher learning.

3) They assumed that the exercise of authority within the institutional model is itself superior.

4) They assumed that the "praise" within the institutional model is superior.

5) They assumed, in conclusion, that the alleged "overall fellowship" within the institutional model offers superior diversity and overall quality.

So, what are your thoughts on these points? Can everyone here step outside the confining boxes of their biased thinking and apply a critical analysis of the claims?

Now, unless you have actually lived out both models, your input may be viewed as suspect if such bias becomes evident. What I'm looking for is an experiential analysis of the claims from different perspectives. Having been hurt within either of the two models isn't an address of the actual points provided. That is the "bias" I'd like to avoid in order to see if folks can actually step back and address ONLY the merits of the claims.

If you are so pro-institutional in your thinking that you've never even given thought to other expressions, types, models, forms, content, or anything else that deviates away from the iron-fisted choke-hold of some ecclesiastical model you've grown up with, then your input will be, as indicated, suspect and of no real value to answering the questions asked.

Group-think is mostly an exercise of blind indifference to the full expanse of human experience that is far too vast to be so simplistically defined down to such a low level of constrained intellect. If other models offend you, then perhaps it would be better that you simply lurk about rather than offering anything as input. I'm not looking for debate that eventually degrades to a level of ad hominem, but rather level-headed discussion about the merits of the claims and counter-claims.

Jr

Albion · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
So, what are your thoughts on these points?

Since you ask, I do not believe that they expressed any of those points. Certainly not in the way you have paraphrased them for us.

Can everyone here step outside the confining boxes of their biased thinking and apply a critical analysis of the claims?

Sure. They're mainly bunk, but that refers to how they are presented here with the words used in the OP, not on what 'they' might have said on that program you spoke about.
……………………..………………………………………………………………
1) They assumed that the orchestrated form of what they call "corporate worship" is itself superior.

Apparently, this means that an organized form of corporate worship (such as includes a sermon, Holy Communion, Bible readings, and so on) is superior to disorganized gatherings.

2) They assumed that historic and the modern sermon (teaching, rhetoric) is superior to merely meeting and sharing with others, in that to do so any grouping needs to be overseen by one who is "ordained" by some man-made institution of higher learning.

This is what the New Testament teaches us. It is what the early church did. I refer to various leaders, with the necessary qualifications, being chosen by the church in some way, performing a variety of necessary tasks for the congregation. The opposite approach, the "Do it Yourself" approach, often with unqualified and untrained leaders, is seldom better and never is in accord with Scripture.

3) They assumed that the exercise of authority within the institutional model is itself superior.

If so, they are merely accepting of the New Testament model. Why would that be wrong?

4) They assumed that the "praise" within the institutional model is superior.

We would have to know more about what was "assumed" in order to answer properly.

5) They assumed, in conclusion, that the alleged "overall fellowship" within the institutional model offers superior diversity and overall quality.

It almost certainly does, in that home churches and park gatherings are almost always small and with limited resources, so that they do not reach very many people and are able to provide but few services. If these were in addition to congregational life, it might be different, but you are apparently not advocating that.

royal priest · Jul 28, 2019

The model they approve of describes the NT model. Accordingly, they also ascribe to some degree of what's known as the "regulative principle". The idea that God's model revealed in Scripture is the model He expects us to follow.

SwordmanJr · Jul 28, 2019

Albion said:
Since you ask, I do not believe that they expressed any of those points. Certainly not in the way you have paraphrased them for us.

Sure. They're mainly bunk, but that refers to how they are presented here with the words used in the OP, not on what 'they' might have said on that program you spoke about.

Whatever...

SwordmanJr · Jul 28, 2019

royal priest said:
The model they approve of describes the NT model. Accordingly, they also ascribe to some degree of what's known as the "regulative principle". The idea that God's model revealed in Scripture is the model He expects us to follow.

So, what are you saying? Are you saying the historic and modern model can be found in the pages of the NT? Could you provide references for such...if it really exists.

Jr

Albion · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
Whatever...

Well, you asked...

RDKirk · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
So, what are you saying? Are you saying the historic and modern model can be found in the pages of the NT? Could you provide references for such...if it really exists.

Jr

The first congregation of Christians in Jerusalem was a "mega-church."

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. -- Acts 2

One of the benefits of a mega-church is its available resources. Jesus had promised:

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields..." -- Mark 10

A hundred brothers, a hundred sisters, a hundred mothers and fathers, a hundred fields, a hundred homes...that doesn't fall out of the sky like manna. My dead mother isn't going to come back to life and bear me 99 brothers. That comes from the Body of Christ, from the congregation of fellow believers around me.

Because it had the resources of a mega-church, the congregation in Jerusalem could do this:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. -- Acts 2

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. -- Acts 4

Now, to be sure, most people in America do not get the benefit from a mega-church promised by Jesus. That's not because the mega-church per se is wrong, because we see that the apostles who had learned "churching" directly from Jesus set up a mega-church.

It's because American Christians commonly do church wrong. It is rare to find any congregation in America with the heart of "there will be no needy in our congregation," and particularly difficult to find that determined ethic in an American mega-church. Somewhere in American doctrine is the idea, "If you're needy, it's your fault and God is punishing you, so it's righteous for you to suffer," and that sentiment is hard to root out of the American heart.

Albion · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
So, what are you saying? Are you saying the historic and modern model can be found in the pages of the NT? Could you provide references for such...if it really exists.

Jr

Goodness! There is such a lot of material to be found that I am surprised you would nave made the presentation you did without already having considered them. See for instance 1 Corinthians, Timothy, Titus, and the Acts of the Apostles. Any search engine can point you to particular verses.

topher694 · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
While listening to AFR (American Family Radio) yesterday, the program at the time had some dudes talking about the alleged superiority of the institutional model compared to meeting in homes, out in a park, coffee shop, a forest, et al. I numbered my the points for ease of reference.

Some points they made were the following:

1) They assumed that the orchestrated form of what they call "corporate worship" is itself superior.

2) They assumed that historic and the modern sermon (teaching, rhetoric) is superior to merely meeting and sharing with others, in that to do so any grouping needs to be overseen by one who is "ordained" by some man-made institution of higher learning.

3) They assumed that the exercise of authority within the institutional model is itself superior.

4) They assumed that the "praise" within the institutional model is superior.

5) They assumed, in conclusion, that the alleged "overall fellowship" within the institutional model offers superior diversity and overall quality.

So, what are your thoughts on these points? Can everyone here step outside the confining boxes of their biased thinking and apply a critical analysis of the claims?

Now, unless you have actually lived out both models, your input may be viewed as suspect if such bias becomes evident. What I'm looking for is an experiential analysis of the claims from different perspectives. Having been hurt within either of the two models isn't an address of the actual points provided. That is the "bias" I'd like to avoid in order to see if folks can actually step back and address ONLY the merits of the claims.

If you are so pro-institutional in your thinking that you've never even given thought to other expressions, types, models, forms, content, or anything else that deviates away from the iron-fisted choke-hold of some ecclesiastical model you've grown up with, then your input will be, as indicated, suspect and of no real value to answering the questions asked.

Group-think is mostly an exercise of blind indifference to the full expanse of human experience that is far too vast to be so simplistically defined down to such a low level of constrained intellect. If other models offend you, then perhaps it would be better that you simply lurk about rather than offering anything as input. I'm not looking for debate that eventually degrades to a level of ad hominem, but rather level-headed discussion about the merits of the claims and counter-claims.

Jr

Backdrop: I have done and lead both. I currently pastor what I think these folks would call an institutional model church.

1) disagree. I think comes from the idea of the institutional model has access to better musical resources (people & equipment) which may be true, but in practice the quality of corporate worship is far more dependent on the people worshiping than the equipment. I've seen a single person with an acoustic guitar lead a small group into deeper levels of worship than a full band with professional musicians and all the bells and whistles leading thousands.

2) moderately agree. Group sharing has it's place. But the more people you get involved in the discussion the more chance for getting off topic, ego, bias, jockeying for position and so on (not all do this, but more chance). A singular voice with prep, prayer and study behind it and the anointing flowing carries a greater opportunity for deeper revelation and less chance for confusion. However, a formal degree is not required for ordination... they are two different things. Education is good, nothing wrong with it at all, but being called and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit is better

3) very slightly agree, but probably not for the same reasons. This mostly depends on the competence of the authority. Authority is very important, without it things will get derailed quickly. What I've found is that in home groups there is a great deal of familiarity and that can (sometimes) lead to a lack of respect for authority. The institutional model seems to carry a greater respect for authority, but that can clearly vary a great deal.

4) disagree. #1 applies to this as well, but praise is entirely about the people praising not the place. Heck, music isn't even required.

5) disagree. I think this may come from the idea that the institutional model again has greater resources to do more fellowship "things". My experience is that often this access does not translate to greater or deeper fellowship, just more "fun stuff" for people to do. True fellowship happens when people are able to open up to one another, not just eat hot dogs with each other (though hot dogs are good too). The home model has this type of fellowship naturally built in.

To be clear this isn't a endorsement of one model over another. I think they both have their place, and they both have their natural strengths and weaknesses.

Gordon Wright · Jul 28, 2019

I have my doubts as to whether the NT model is relevant to our day and age, but I've gone into that in detail elsewhere. So I'll just say: whatever works best is best, and what works best is something you must ascertain for yourself.

RDKirk · Jul 28, 2019

Gordon Wright said:
I have my doubts as to whether the NT model is relevant to our day and age, but I've gone into that in detail elsewhere. So I'll just say: whatever works best is best, and what works best is something you must ascertain for yourself.

I've seen it work, albeit among Asians--but not very well among people for whom Christianity is the default religion.

A big part of the reason is that Christianity in the West has adapted itself as the "chaplain" of society instead of a detached group largely in tension with society.

W2L · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
1) They assumed that the orchestrated form of what they call "corporate worship" is itself superior.

2) They assumed that historic and the modern sermon (teaching, rhetoric) is superior to merely meeting and sharing with others, in that to do so any grouping needs to be overseen by one who is "ordained" by some man-made institution of higher learning.

3) They assumed that the exercise of authority within the institutional model is itself superior.

4) They assumed that the "praise" within the institutional model is superior.

5) They assumed, in conclusion, that the alleged "overall fellowship" within the institutional model offers superior diversity and overall quality.

I think the institution has gone off the rails.

Gordon Wright · Jul 28, 2019

RDKirk said:
A big part of the reason is that Christianity in the West has adapted itself as the "chaplain" of society instead of a detached group largely in tension with society.

Puts me in mind of the chaplain in Catch 22.

RDKirk · Jul 28, 2019

Gordon Wright said:
Puts me in mind of the chaplain in Catch 22.

Or for that matter the chaplains in "The Love Boat" and "MASH."

The point being that the chaplain doesn't get involved in setting direction, only in asserting that God blesses whatever direction the captain decides. That's been the basic role of the Church in Western cultures over the last 1700 years.

topher694 · Jul 28, 2019

This does leave one important and growing trend, the institution of "I don't need any institution" otherwise known as the institution of self:

1) I don't need anyone else to worship

2) The Holy Spirit is the only teacher I need. Therefore other people couldn't possibly have a greater understanding than me.

3) I'm my own authority. All other authority is bad and mean and selfish so I'm going to do it myself.

4) Praise God I don't need anyone else!

5) The best company I can keep is myself. People are messy, therefore I avoid fellowshiping with them in any meaningful Christian way.

royal priest · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
So, what are you saying? Are you saying the historic and modern model can be found in the pages of the NT? Could you provide references for such...if it really exists.

Jr

Church: Greek--ekklessia meaning a gathering, an assembly. The epistles were letter written to the churches which gathered in certain places. The titles given to those epistles are based on the demographic of those churches to whom they were addressed. Such as Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, etc.

Revelation 2:1
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write...
Revelation 3:1:
to the angel of the church in Sardis write...
Revelation 2:8
And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write...

Also, these churches knew who were among them. They had lists of names and types of members, which roles they played, etc. For instance, Paul tells Pastor Timothy how to administrate charity to the widows in his church:
1 Timothy 5:9-11
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows...

Also, we are taught how administrate the Lord's discipline upon erring believer's:
Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Now, whether an assembly meets in a home or in a megachurch doesn't matter so much as long as we are being careful to fulfill God's will for us as a church according to His Word.

SwordmanJr · Jul 28, 2019

Albion said:
Well, you asked...

No. I did not in relation to your counter. You chose to launch out on your own to question the accuracy of the statements written in relation to the statements made in the program. I don't give a rip snort if you believe what they stated, or that they ever stated it. You obviously have an attitude and bias about this subject that I was wanting to avoid. So, again, whatever...

Albion · Jul 28, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
So, what are your thoughts on these points?

You asked, so I gave you an answer (post 2) that responded to your OP point by giving my observations about them..

That was what you replied to by saying "whatever."

SwordmanJr said:
No. I did not in relation to your counter.

It looks like you got confused somewhere along the way, but it's not worth carrying further. You have a nice day, hear?

SwordmanJr · Jul 28, 2019

RDKirk said:
The first congregation of Christians in Jerusalem was a "mega-church."

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. -- Acts 2

So, do you believe they had a large cathedral style amphitheater in Jerusalem for 3000+ people?

One of the benefits of a mega-church is its available resources. Jesus had promised:

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields..." -- Mark 10

A hundred brothers, a hundred sisters, a hundred mothers and fathers, a hundred fields, a hundred homes...that doesn't fall out of the sky like manna. My dead mother isn't going to come back to life and bear me 99 brothers. That comes from the Body of Christ, from the congregation of fellow believers around me.

Hmm. I thought theologians interpreted that as having to do with following Christ. Never have I heard any of them do an exposition about it referring to a justification for mega-institutions. That's an interesting twist of perspective I had never heard before. Thanks for sharing that.

Because it had the resources of a mega-church, the congregation in Jerusalem could do this:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. -- Acts 2

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. -- Acts 4

I'm curious how this relates to the institutional model in support of the claims made by those guys in the program?

Now, to be sure, most people in America do not get the benefit from a mega-church promised by Jesus. That's not because the mega-church per se is wrong, because we see that the apostles who had learned "churching" directly from Jesus set up a mega-church.

Are you sure about that? Wasn't Jesus talking about a (C)hurch composed of people scattered all across the earth rather than a collective grouping with large facilities and all the associated expenditures upon things rather than people?

It's because American Christians commonly do church wrong. It is rare to find any congregation in America with the heart of "there will be no needy in our congregation," and particularly difficult to find that determined ethic in an American mega-church. Somewhere in American doctrine is the idea, "If you're needy, it's your fault and God is punishing you, so it's righteous for you to suffer," and that sentiment is hard to root out of the American heart.

Is it specifically "American" rather than simply fleshly? Hasn't the institutional model suffered from this all throughout its history? Is there now something new under the sun?

Jr

SwordmanJr · Jul 28, 2019

topher694 said:
Backdrop: I have done and lead both. I currently pastor what I think these folks would call an institutional model church.

Thanks for your thoughtful points, topher.

1) disagree. ...I've seen a single person with an acoustic guitar lead a small group into deeper levels of worship than a full band with professional musicians and all the bells and whistles leading thousands.

So, if I may, what you're saying is that large expenditures of resources and energy toward massive, or even smaller, productions isn't what makes it better, but rather the heart of those involved? That sounds genuine and very much what the Lord would would agree is the case.

2) moderately agree. Group sharing has it's place. But the more people you get involved in the discussion the more chance for getting off topic, ego, bias, jockeying for position and so on (not all do this, but more chance). A singular voice with prep, prayer and study behind it and the anointing flowing carries a greater opportunity for deeper revelation and less chance for confusion. However, a formal degree is not required for ordination... they are two different things. Education is good, nothing wrong with it at all, but being called and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit is better

If I understand your statements, but from a different perspective, then, would you say that protectionism (if I may label it as such for lack of a better word) is a format we should perpetuate in order to protect against what some see as the possibility for getting off track? What damage is there if a meeting drifts off into an area of theology and daily life that's actually more relevant to the needs of those present?

If the people are allowed to reveal what's relevant to them in their lives at that time, and what they need to hear about, how is the stringent, controlled stage show superior when the real needs of the people are not allowed to manifest into the awareness of the people on stage? Isn't that no more than the usual fare of what we can get when going to a movie theater? In other words, how can one man (voice) possibly hope to touch each life in that place, all living out unique and diverse needs? What one man is so good in his abilities that he can be all things to all the people present? Is it not any more than my example above about going to a pre-rehearsed and acted out movie at a theater? Movies can give us warm fuzzies as take-aways, which is true of all the rhetoric (sermons) we may hear on any given Sunday morning.

Just some questions to try wrestle this down into a deeper level of understanding about perspective in order to explore the idea of superiority outlined in the OP.

3) very slightly agree, but probably not for the same reasons. This mostly depends on the competence of the authority. Authority is very important, without it things will get derailed quickly. What I've found is that in home groups there is a great deal of familiarity and that can (sometimes) lead to a lack of respect for authority. The institutional model seems to carry a greater respect for authority, but that can clearly vary a great deal.

I see what you're saying. However, for the sake of understanding, could you define your use of the term or concept of "authority"? This way we can all be assured of being on the same page.

4) disagree. #1 applies to this as well, but praise is entirely about the people praising not the place. Heck, music isn't even required.

Agreed.

5) disagree. I think this may come from the idea that the institutional model again has greater resources to do more fellowship "things". My experience is that often this access does not translate to greater or deeper fellowship, just more "fun stuff" for people to do. True fellowship happens when people are able to open up to one another, not just eat hot dogs with each other (though hot dogs are good too). The home model has this type of fellowship naturally built in.

I disagree that hot dogs are good for one, but that's another discussion altogether...(grin) I like what you said about fellowship. Most people think they're living out true fellowship while looking at the backs of each other's heads. I never could understand that one. That shows us that most people have not one clue what TRUE fellowship is all about. Being transparent to others is dangerous because it opens one up to the group gossip mill that defines many (c)hurch organizations and their congregational makeup.

To be clear this isn't a endorsement of one model over another. I think they both have their place, and they both have their natural strengths and weaknesses.

I like your inputs to all this, and thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Jr

The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

Double-edged Sword only

Facilitator

debtor to grace

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Facilitator

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Facilitator

Go Turtle!

Newbie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Go Turtle!

debtor to grace

Double-edged Sword only

Facilitator

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Similar threads