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
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.
