The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

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

Click to expand...

1, 2 and 4, 5 can sometimes go very well, and be really good, but are not guaranteed to always be any better than "where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name".

The most key thing is whether He is present and the Spirit is followed.

The problems with #3 though are why a portion (not all, not most, but very many) of those outside churches are outside: because of abused 'authority', including especially wrongful judgement (judgmentalism).

But clearly a house church can be very good, and better at doing as Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn or a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of these must be done to build up the church.
as many can contribute to the worship itself, instead of only a pastor and a choir/band.

But there is no reason a more organized church cannot intentionally allow more to contribute to the service. I remember one church of my youth allowed anyone to speak up and go to the front, and for instance they would ask "does anyone have a song?", and though only me and one or two others past the regulars ever seemed to, it was a good thing.

SwordmanJr said:

Thanks for your thoughtful points, topher.

Click to expand...

You're very welcome.

SwordmanJr said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep. Not that the expenditures can't be great and fun and add to the experience, but it is by no means a guarantee, and those things are not the main thing.

SwordmanJr said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is why I only moderately agree. There is a place for what you outlined and value in it. However what I have found is that the discussion format can lead down several rabbit trails where you touch on a lot of things, but never get deep into anything. Further, it takes just one or two dominate personalities to overpower the quieter ones and force the conversation down their preferred rabbit trail (even if it is a need). In those situations the quieter ones could very well have greater need, but fear speaking up, thus it never gets addressed. An authentic preaching situation opens the door for everyone to receive of what the Spirit is saying at the level they are capable. True preaching also leaves open the door for rabbit trails/redirection (boy this sure happened to me last night) but also should keep things from getting all mixed up.

SwordmanJr said:

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.

Click to expand...

As the senior pastor, I am responsible for the church and the service. The order of things in the service, how things are done, when they are done. We do intercessory prayer at a certain time in a specific manner. We have a distinct style of music that we use, that is ultimately mine (and my wife's) call. At my church we leave "platform" for the gifts of the spirit to flow, not just through me or leadership, but through anyone. However, there are rules/order to how that works that people are required to follow.

For example, if you have a prophetic word people must give me a brief overview of what it is, then I decide if and when it is appropriate for them to release it... so it flows well with the service instead of hindering it. If the service is a symphony, the Holy Spirit can use any instrument (people) He wants and I am kinda like the Holy Spirit's conductor making sure everything fits together in the way He shows me... this requires the people to respect and follow the conductor.

All of those things (and more) are a part of my authority, that I am responsible to God for. If people come to my church, it is expected that they respect those things and follow them. However, it is not uncommon for people to feel like they know better. They tell me I'm doing something wrong, or I'm hindering the Spirit (because I'm not letting them do what they want, how they want, when they want)... I should do this music. I should pray like this instead... heck, I have even been told that I "pace" wrong when I pray. But, in the church God has given me, these are all things that are under my authority. I'm always open to suggestions, but that is not what I'm talking about here.

There are many areas where I do not have authority, but some preachers try to extend their authority to those areas anyway and that just causes problems for all of us. For example I have no authority to tell anyone how to do their job, unless they work for me. I can tell them what the Bible says about how they should conduct themselves while at work, but I can't tell them WHAT to do.

To bring it full circle, I have noticed that the respect for this type of authority seems to be more natural in the institutional setting than a home setting.

SwordmanJr said:

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

Click to expand...

Of course not.

However, they did have teaching meetings in moderate groups outside the temple and handled more intimate congregational matters in each other's homes.

Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple complex, and broke bread from house to house. -- Acts 2

Many signs and wonders were being done among the people through the hands of the apostles. By common consent they would all meet in Solomon’s Colonnade.
...
Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah. - Acts 5

They didn't have any single large place to meet, but they were still all one congregation. That was true wherever there were Christians--each city had a single congregation.

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.

Click to expand...

American Christians interpret it that way because otherwise Americans would have to start doing church vastly different from today. All these preachers with their storefront churches would realize they were doing church wrong.

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

Click to expand...

I'm not concerned about their claims.

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?

Click to expand...

Read the scriptures for yourself. Each city had only one congregation. Obviously given the tensions between the new Christian groups and the established religions, they didn't have any large meeting places. However, there was only one congregation in each city.

Moreover, they considered themselves connected and under the authority of the Apostles in Jerusalem.

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?

Click to expand...

It's "new" as of Constantine. Constantine gave the Church a stake in the fortunes of the empire. As you may know, the Roman empereror was also the pontifex maximus (highest priest) of all legal Roman religions. When Constantine de-criminalized Christianity, he was also automatically seen by the Romans as the high priest of Christianity as well. But Constantine did not repudiate the current legal pagan religions of Rome--he remained the high priest of those as well.

That was a very clever political move by Constantine. The emperors had failed to exterminate Christianity, so he co-opted it instead (which is exactly what Kim Jong Un is attempting to do in North Korea right now).

I don't blame the Church much--I'm sure they regarded deliverance from Roman persecution as a gift from God--I'm sure being fed to lions had gotten pretty old.

It was probably a while before they realized that the protection of the king brought as well an obligation to decree God's blessings upon whatever actions the king thought necessary to preserve his power and wealth. The Church had become the chaplain of the king's cruise ship: No position on the command deck, but always expected to bless the voyage.

When asked how we could identify a true disciple of the Lord, He said we would recognize them by the fruits of their lives (Matt 7:16-20). Fruit of remaining faithful to the one Church Jesus founded, and its teaching: Unity in belief, unity in teaching, unity in worship, unity in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. Fruit of abandoning His Church and attempting to find truth some other way: Fragmentation into thousands of conflicting manmade denominations, teaching thousands of conflicting and therefore false beliefs, in just a few hundred years. You just can't beat God's plan, which was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My heavenly Father are ONE".

topher694 said:

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

Click to expand...

Me, I go by Jeremiah 17. It's biblical to have trust issues.

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.

Click to expand...

I guess I believe in the so-called institutional model. Regarding the numbered points raised in the OP (most of which include a lot of loaded language, biased terminology and "scare quotes"), I would mostly want to add nuances to them, though with little substantial disagreement.

But in particular, #2 stands out. The idea of "meeting and sharing" sounds attractive to some Feeling types but (A) the apostles, the saints and indeed Christian leaders all through history have preached and (B) the lack of an acknowledged leader (call him a "pastor" if you wish) to teach actual lessons seems like an obvious omission to me.

The inter-personal function of home ecclesial communities is mostly solved for in the so-called institutional Protestant model with small groups, Sunday schools, Bible studies, pizza socials and other activities. Even the Catholic Church has generally similar faculties intended to allow people to socialize with each or study together or whatever.

Put plainly, I see nothing offered by home ecclesial communities that cannot be found in abundance by the so-called institutional model.

With respect, I regard these home ecclesial communities as yet another modish Protestant fad. It's the latest purpose-driven whatever; as unnecessary as it is befuddling. The reasoning (such as it is) behind these home ecclesial communities sounds spurious at best and outright misinformed at worst.

While I can acknowledge the necessity (and even the wisdom) of home ecclesial communities in countries where Christians are persecuted, I simply do not believe it is an appropriate model in places like America, where Christianity enjoys a tremendous level of freedom and public acceptance.

SwordmanJr said:

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.

Click to expand...

I find that "group think" is a term used by contrarians after encountering a large number of people with whom they disagree.

Put plainly, I see nothing offered by home ecclesial communities that cannot be found in abundance by the so-called institutional model.

With respect, I regard these home ecclesial communities as yet another modish Protestant fad. It's the latest purpose-driven whatever; as unnecessary as it is befuddling. The reasoning (such as it is) behind these home ecclesial communities sounds spurious at best and outright misinformed at worst.

While I can acknowledge the necessity (and even the wisdom) of home ecclesial communities in countries where Christians are persecuted, I simply do not believe it is an appropriate model....

Click to expand...

I went to ecclesial community this morning and was pleased to hear the ecclesial community bells ringing prior to the start of worship. Then as the service was about to begin, everyone there got as quiet as ecclesial community mouses.

Gordon Wright said:

Me, I go by Jeremiah 17. It's biblical to have trust issues.

Click to expand...

Now that is funny.

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

Click to expand...

Honestly since you are asking for an impossible answer given the very restrictive nature of your post the only answer I can give you is that neither system is perfect or will ever be perfect because imperfect churches are made up of imperfect people. The best thing that anyone can do is to find what works best for them in terms of getting their spiritual needs met whether that's worshiping in a church, hosting Bible Study in their home, or giving praise to God while golfing on Sunday.

topher694 said:

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

Click to expand...

I won’t say Christianity is depressing but the way its lived out by many is. Most conversations center on negative, stressful, or painful subjects. I hear more about joy and gratitude from self-help books.

SwordmanJr said:

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



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.



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



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?



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

Click to expand...

SwordmanJr. I'm going to give you a little lesson here and if will be teachable this will be a blessing to you. The church is not a physical building, a home meeting where people gather for fellowship, or anything at all that has to do with an institution. The "Church" or Ekklesia as it is called in the Greek meaning the Gathered are all of the people in the world who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and follow God. That means Jim the Lutheran, Dan the Methodist, and Stan the Pentecostal though they may go to a different place to worship on Sunday are apart of the same church and the same family that is founded under God. Christianity has always been about people having a relationship with God not religion. The Institution is just merely a necessary evil that humans have to deal with until Jesus comes back. It's not pretty and sometimes it downright ugly but I've seen God use the institutional church to do great things. Focus on God first, focus on the Universal church and not the Institutional church and you'll be alright.

RDKirk said:

It's "new" as of Constantine. Constantine gave the Church a stake in the fortunes of the empire. As you may know, the Roman empereror was also the pontifex maximus (highest priest) of all legal Roman religions. When Constantine de-criminalized Christianity, he was also automatically seen by the Romans as the high priest of Christianity as well. But Constantine did not repudiate the current legal pagan religions of Rome--he remained the high priest of those as well.

That was a very clever political move by Constantine. The emperors had failed to exterminate Christianity, so he co-opted it instead (which is exactly what Kim Jong Un is attempting to do in North Korea right now).

Click to expand...

Firstly St. Constantine was not a priest within the church, he had no ability to give the sacraments and had no Ecumenical power. The most he could do was ask a council of bishops (Ecumenical Council or synod) to be convened, and also elect who the head local representatives (Pentarchs) be.

Also I find your view that Constantine converted merely for political gain a highly secular take, the product of modern scholars. It completely discards the church record that Constantine was shown a vision of the Rho-phi in the sky and heard Christ's voice.

LaBèlla said:

I won’t say Christianity is depressing but the way its lived out by many is. Most conversations center on negative, stressful, or painful subjects. I hear more about joy and gratitude from self-help books.

Click to expand...

I recognize that this happens, but it seems kind of counterintuitive to say church is depressing so my response is to isolate myself, which can be a symptom of depression.

Additionally and ironically, there is a large and vocal group that is upset because they feel many modern big name preachers are too positive and encouraging and have in fact used the term "self-help" to describe these preacher's sermons.

topher694 said:

I recognize that this happens, but it seems kind of counterintuitive to say church is depressing so my response is to isolate myself, which can be a symptom of depression.

Click to expand...

I don’t isolate myself. But if I wanted Oprah moments I’d tune into her. No offense, but I’m not wired that way. Marinating on depressing stuff isn’t my cup of tea.

Additionally and ironically, there is a large and vocal group that is upset because they feel many modern big name preachers are too positive and encouraging and have in fact used the term "self-help" to describe these preacher's sermons.

Click to expand...

Those with good lives who are honestly happy and content don’t have a voice. I read positive psychology books. I can’t relate to the rest.

LaBèlla said:

I don’t isolate myself. But if I wanted Oprah moments I’d tune into her. No offense, but I’m not wired that way. Marinating on depressing stuff isn’t my cup of tea.



Those with good lives who are honestly happy and content don’t have a voice. I read positive psychology books. I can’t relate to the rest.

Click to expand...

???

topher694 said:

???

Click to expand...

Casting your cares is the opposite of talking something to death. Some people don’t know how to be happy...be content...be grateful...or fix their minds on the things we’re supposed to focus on.

They only know what’s wrong...lacking...unrealized.

☦Marius☦ said:

Firstly St. Constantine was not a priest within the church, he had no ability to give the sacraments and had no Ecumenical power. The most he could do was ask a council of bishops (Ecumenical Council or synod) to be convened, and also elect who the head local representatives (Pentarchs) be.

Also I find your view that Constantine converted merely for political gain a highly secular take, the product of modern scholars. It completely discards the church record that Constantine was shown a vision of the Rho-phi in the sky and heard Christ's voice.

Click to expand...

I find your view excludes the understanding that secular politics always takes an extreme role among highly placed political figures. Roman emperors, in particular, did nothing without consideration of politics because their actual lives depended on it.

Constantine's predecessors had made every effort to paint Christians as disloyal atheists and enemies of the state. Not even as emperor could he turn generations of hatred on a dime without dire personal consequences--emperors had been assassinated for less outrageous moves, and Constantine's hold on the throne was already under challenge.

It's a fact that Constantine did not repudiate the pagan religions. They understood him to be the pontifex maximus of all legal Roman religions, and absent any imperial dictum to the contrary, they understood his continuance as their pontifex maxiumus.

Moreover, Constantine was not baptized into Christianity until his deathbed--because if he had been, he would have necessarily had to repudiate the pagan religions and his title as their pontifex maximus. He did not do that because he was not ignorant of the political ramifications.

Now, did the Church consider Constantine pontifex maxinus? Unlikely...but the pagans would have, and the pagans represented the wealthy and powerful segment of Roman society.