The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

SwordmanJr said:

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?
Jr

Click to expand...

I quit the FT pastorate because I don't think the institutional model resembles the NT model. Just ask yourself what did Paul instruct/expect to happen when the church body meets together? This satirical piece drives home the point:
The New Testament Way to Meet

• How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
• If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
• Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
• Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. What! Came the word of God out from you? Or came it to you only?
• If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
• Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently, and in order.
  1 Co 14:26-40 (KJV)

Our Modern Way of Meeting

• How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, the pastor hath a doctrine, and the minister of music hath psalms. Let all things be done unto edifying.
• If anyone besides the pastor hath a doctrine, let him not speak; let him hold his peace. Let him sit in the pew, and face the back of the neck of the person which sitteth ahead of him.
• Let the people keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith church tradition. But if they will learn anything, let them ask their pastor after the service, for it is a shame for a layman to speak in the church. For the pastor, he hath a seminary degree, and the layman, he hath not so lofty a degree.
• If any man desire to remain a church member in good standing, let him acknowledge that what I write to you is the command of the denominational headquarters. But if any man ignore this, he shall be promptly escorted out the door by the ushers.
• Wherefore brothers, covet not to speak in the church. Let all things be done decently and in the order in which it hath been written in the church bulletin. - By Rusty Entrekin

I've also been in the house church model which invites more individual participation and group interaction, but that is not always the case. I once knew a pastor who started a house church. However, he only changed the setting of "where" the church met without bothering to change "how" the church functioned. He kept himself as the teacher/pastor/leader of his group without training up others to lead and disciple others. As a result, when he moved, the house church fell apart because the sheep no longer had an under-shepherd to lead them as they had not learned how to feed and lead themselves under the guidance of the Spirit.

RDKirk said:

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.

Click to expand...

Also a secular myth. Constantine wasn't Baptized until on his deathbed because at the time it was common to do so. No firm Orthodoxy had been established on Baptism yet, and many people waited until right before death because some believed being reborn, or completely forgiven of all sins was something baptism provided, and therefore it was better to do so right before you had to be judged. In other words, get to heaven while you are still squeaky clean from that washing.

Of course rulers had to be political, and even brutal. But so also did the Israeli leaders have to be in the OT, and they don't face nearly as much criticism as Constantine for basically the same things. I think Constantine took the risk of converting because he genuinely believed, but he was ruler of a completely pagan empire hostile to that. Its a miracle he was able to call the first ecumenical council to combat Arianism and establish Orthodoxy. It saved the church right as it was at it's most dangerous time (the time of heresies).

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...

If you want a simple answer it’s this. If there is no means to support full time ministry financially. Then there will be failure.Full time ministry is designed primarily to give those called of God the time to be filled with the Holy Spirit and his power. On the other side of that coin. If that full time ministry assume “leadership” roles that control an institution. There will be systematic failure. Men are not capable of the kind of leadership necessary for ALL of God’s will to be done. Only Jesus has that capability.

An interesting ministry in my town was THE CHURCH UNDER THE BRIDGE

Actually it was under an Interstate highway, featured contemporary music, preaching and testimony. The 'resources' came from various 'institutional churches' - Protestant, Catholic, and Greek Orthodox, who TOOK TURNS supplying food, and providing folding chairs. Although 'the unchurched' we're a definite 'targeted group', many college students from nearby Baylor University attended, staunch Baptist kids who were hardly 'unchurched'. I went several times, it was in a period w h en I was singing in a Lutheran choir, at an early service and a MUCH later late service and I went to Church Under the Bridge in between these two services. The first time I went through the line and ate the beans and hot dogs, then I realized I wasn't poor, and started going to nearby IHOP -- some of the attendees really needed the food prepared by the rotating 'institutional' churches. There was a regular pastor for this ministry, I assume his training was similar to other pastors. Weather was an issue on some days, but I felt it was . A very successful unconventional ministry supported by various conventional churches in town.

It is God Himself who established how a church is to be set up:
Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 4:11-12 - King James Version
He set some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, preachers and teachers.
For the perfecting of the saints and the work of the ministry.
There are hundreds who go out to the streets, the jungles, the underground secret places to minister....these are called evangelists.
It was prophesied in Ezekial that there would rise up shepherds that do not feed His sheep...and many warnings in the Bible about shepherds that cause the sheep to go astray.
I believe it is His Will that we have a pastor to teach and guide us.
As far as whether it is in a church "building" as is tradition or on a football field makes no difference to me.

Heart2Soul said:

It is God Himself who established how a church is to be set up:
Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 4:11-12 - King James Version
He set some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, preachers and teachers.
For the perfecting of the saints and the work of the ministry.
There are hundreds who go out to the streets, the jungles, the underground secret places to minister....these are called evangelists.
It was prophesied in Ezekial that there would rise up shepherds that do not feed His sheep...and many warnings in the Bible about shepherds that cause the sheep to go astray.
I believe it is His Will that we have a pastor to teach and guide us.
As far as whether it is in a church "building" as is tradition or on a football field makes no difference to me.

Click to expand...

The pastors in a NT church consisted of elders - as in plural elders and shared leadership. No such thing as the "senior pastor" as we have today imitating the corporate CEO model.

☦Marius☦ said:

Also a secular myth. Constantine wasn't Baptized until on his deathbed because at the time it was common to do so. No firm Orthodoxy had been established on Baptism yet, and many people waited until right before death because some believed being reborn, or completely forgiven of all sins was something baptism provided, and therefore it was better to do so right before you had to be judged. In other words, get to heaven while you are still squeaky clean from that washing.

Of course rulers had to be political, and even brutal. But so also did the Israeli leaders have to be in the OT, and they don't face nearly as much criticism as Constantine for basically the same things. I think Constantine took the risk of converting because he genuinely believed, but he was ruler of a completely pagan empire hostile to that. Its a miracle he was able to call the first ecumenical council to combat Arianism and establish Orthodoxy. It saved the church right as it was at it's most dangerous time (the time of heresies).

Click to expand...

No firm orthodoxy on water baptism? Go tell the Ethiopian eunuch that as he certainly didn't hesitate to get baptized as were countless other examples in the NT.

Oldmantook said:

No firm orthodoxy on water baptism? Go tell the Ethiopian eunuch that as he certainly didn't hesitate to get baptized as were countless other examples in the NT.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was correct theology, merely that it did indeed exist. Since their were no creeds yet established and Constantine was hundreds of years after the Apostles, different ideas developed about ways of doing things. You forget that was at a time where scriptural Canon hadn't been officially established and even the gospels weren't necessarily in every parish much less every epistle.

☦Marius☦ said:

I didn't say it was correct theology, merely that it did indeed exist. Since their were no creeds yet established and Constantine was hundreds of years after the Apostles, different ideas developed about ways of doing things. You forget that was at a time where scriptural Canon hadn't been officially established and even the gospels weren't necessarily in every parish much less every epistle.

Click to expand...

The Apostles Creed was already in existence before Constantine. The original Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 AD, one year after Constantine's "conversion." Though these particular creeds did not reference water baptism, other documents prior to Constantine did deal with the subject of water baptism such as The Didache - The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles which specifically teaches about the necessity of water baptism. Thus to claim that someone of Constantine's stature and savvy was unaware of baptism as a foundational Christian practice is I think suspect.

Oldmantook said:

Thus to claim that someone of Constantine's stature and savvy was unaware of baptism as a foundational Christian practice is I think suspect.

Click to expand...

Of course Constantine was aware of baptism.

But it's also likely that he believed it was better to be baptised later in life.

Oldmantook said:

The pastors in a NT church consisted of elders - as in plural elders and shared leadership. No such thing as the "senior pastor" as we have today imitating the corporate CEO model.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

It is likely, for example, that the angels/messengers in Revelation 1:20 were the senior pastors of the named churches. Timothy was clearly a senior pastor. The very earliest church records we have show that there were senior pastors (aka "bishops").

Radagast said:

Of course Constantine was aware of baptism.

But it's also likely that he believed it was better to be baptised later in life.

Click to expand...

Or...he was an unbeliever but decided to "cover his bases" upon his death bed. If he was a believer, than he was disobedient to the command to get baptized for many years. Either way, not a good situation to be in.

Radagast said:

I disagree.

It is likely, for example, that the angels/messengers in Revelation 1:20 were the senior pastors of the named churches. Timothy was clearly a senior pastor. The very earliest church records we have show that there were senior pastors (aka "bishops").

Click to expand...

I disagree.
Rev 1:20 makes no reference to "senior" pastors as that amounts to eisegeting the test. The elders of the church are the pastors, who are the bishops.
Elder, Bishop, Pastor: Three Different Offices or the Same Office?

Oldmantook said:

Or...he was an unbeliever but decided to "cover his bases" upon his death bed. If he was a believer, than he was disobedient to the command to get baptized for many years. Either way, not a good situation to be in.

Click to expand...

Then I guess he and thousands of other Christians at this time who were performing this practice were also "disobedient". People take having the collected Bible for granted these days. I highly doubt Constantine had a copy of the diadache laying around. The Church hadn't even established trinitarian theology firmly yet, much less at what time a person should be baptized. Infantile? Before death? Right before conversion? The NT doesn't specify merely that the person IS baptized.

Also the apostles creed was written in Milan around the same time, yet not by an ecumenical council.

St. Nicholas of Myra (The St. Nicholas) had a favorable opinion of Constantine as well as many other Saints at the time. He did deal with the Arian controversy, and his Mother had many miracles in her life as well.

Oldmantook said:

If he was a believer

Click to expand...

There is no reason to doubt that his conversion was genuine.

Oldmantook said:

than he was disobedient to the command to get baptized for many years

Click to expand...

Yes, but delaying baptism wasn't unusual at the time.

☦Marius☦ said:

He did deal with the Arian controversy

Click to expand...

"Deal with."

Yeah, kind of -- St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face.

First - I would like to recommend a different AFR - Welcome | Ancient Faith Ministries - Ancient Faith Radio.

I think what is important is not what "works" - there are many ideas of what constitutes something as "that works", is it fun, is it growing, etc.. Sports clubs are fun, and secularism is growing - neither of those help with salvation.

The bazillion "churches" out there that no longer hold the teaching of the Apostles is problematic.

What we are after is the truth that leads to salvation. I'm not banking on loose collections of people led by random, self appointed preachers.

The institutional church is in trouble in many ways, but we look to centuries of consistent teaching on key points for our guidance, as well as scripture of course.

There are only two options in the game - Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

When I asked my old Baptist pastor about the Didache he didn't even know what it was. Most modern pastors or leaders are so unfamiliar or closed minded to actual history, it's a bit concerning.

Early on in my Christianity I left an established denomination to join a house church of a few people. It felt so cutting edge and so spiritually right. I felt like I was on the front lines of the whole Christian experience. Of course it eventually fell apart and I was on my own for a couple years until I got back into a regular church. Looking back now, what then seemed like spiritual awareness was more like conceited weirdness. There was nothing special about us at all. I think in lands where Christians meet in cellars and face strong opposition, the grace exists for such necessities. But here, where churches are in plain sight all over, I don't think house churches are that necessary. Although I admit finding a church that fits you can be a challenge, it still is a good idea to keep looking. To do it over again, I would not. I'd rather be in an established church. I still remain an independent person and I will never officially join anything, but my worship is within a structured denomination and I am comfortable there.

What does scripture say about this stuff? I see a lot of opinions but very little scripture. In fact, scripture is quite clear about how God wants to be worshiped and it doesn't fit the informal gathering to share ideas model.

Scripture requires preaching on the world: Matt. 26:13; Mark. 16:15; Acts 9:20;2 Tim. 4:2; Acts 20:8, 17:10;1 Cor. 14:28. It requires reading of scripture: Mark. 4:16-20; Acts 13:15;1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:13; Acts 1:13, 16:13;1 Cor. 11:20. It requires the hearing of the word: Luke. 2:46;Acts 8:31; Rom. 10:41; Jas. 1:22; Luke. 4:20; Acts 20:9It requires the administration of sacraments (when necessary, obviously there will not always be a baptism to preform): Matt. 28:19; Matt. 26:26-29; 1 Cor. 11:24-25. It requires prayer to God: Matt. 6:9;1 Thess. 5:17; Heb. 13:18; Phil. 4:6; Jas. 1:5; 1 Cor. 11:13-15; Deut. 22:5. It requires the singing of Psalms: 1 Chron. 16:9; Psalm 95:1-2; Psalm 105:2; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16.

We also can see from how God has ordered the church that it is to be structured and not informal. Some men are called to be elders, with elders ruling and teaching. Others are called to be deacons, waiting tables and taking care of the poor. 1 Tim 5 basically teaches that the pastor who does well at his job should be compensated with double honor, ie he should be paid better than the widows previously mentioned in the chapter.

The problem with modern home churching is that it rarely if ever follows scripture with regards to how God wishes to be worshiped. While they look to the past for evidence that home churching is allowed, they take out of context why God's people met in homes back in the days of Paul. They met in homes because it often wasn't safe to meet in public spaces. There were also at times lack of public spaces at the time that could be used for worship. Most of us live in the US or other western nations, it isn't unsafe for us to worship God in public. There really isn't a reason to have church at home, absent extenuating circumstances. We should be out in public, with our doors open to the community.

SwordmanJr said:

So, what are your thoughts on these points?

Click to expand...

If, as you stated, in each one, "they assumed", then they had no foundation in truth.