The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

marineimaging · Aug 3, 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

To answer very simply, when Jesus called the 12 disciples to follow him he developed the first organized congregation of the first church of Jesus Christ. No, it wasn't in a building and yes, it was conducted in homes and on walkabouts, but, why do you assume that everybody who attends a fixed church is brainwashed? From my viewpoint, having lived both, the organized church body might have its problems but it has its strong points as well. For one, by working in an organized fashion it has many eyes on the process. Many minds working together to keep on track in terms of answering the call of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Secondly, no organized churches efforts would, or should, stop someone from having home meetings, out in a park, coffee shop, a forest, et al, etc.,. The question of superiority as claimed by these "dudes" has been a point of merit for many centuries. The organized church has it's place for many people. Me included.

thecolorsblend · Aug 5, 2019

Oldmantook said:
If we examine 1 Cor. 14:26 as the basis for what the Apostle Paul himself instructed as to what should happen when the body of Christ should do as we meet together, it becomes quite obvious that the vast majority of churches neglect to do what he instructs. That is the very reason why it is so "bizarre" to you as Paul's instructions are foreign to you. Consequently failure to do so results in a church which is not strengthened/edified as most in the pews remain as spectators instead of active participants.

That has exactly nothing to do with anything I posted.

Again, the Church was facing a very specific array of political and social circumstances during the time in which the New Testament was written. Acting as though those circumstances are normative willfully ignores reality.

Come to that, it also ignores history, where so-called "institutional" parishes had become the norm. If this "institutional" model is wrong, why did it persist for century upon century without a problem?

Oldmantook · Aug 5, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
That has exactly nothing to do with anything I posted.

Again, the Church was facing a very specific array of political and social circumstances during the time in which the New Testament was written. Acting as though those circumstances are normative willfully ignores reality.

Come to that, it also ignores history, where so-called "institutional" parishes had become the norm. If this "institutional" model is wrong, why did it persist for century upon century without a problem?

Paul's instructions to the church in Rom 14:26 are axiomatic and universal; not bound by time, culture and place. The reason why the institutional model exists without a problem is because the sheep don't see the problem and instead blindly follow the norm.

thecolorsblend · Aug 5, 2019

Oldmantook said:
Paul's instructions to the church in Rom 14:26 are axiomatic and universal; not bound by time, culture and place.

This also has nothing to do with anything I posted.

PS- Romans 14 ends with verse 23. There is no Romans 14:26.

Oldmantook said:
the institutional model exists without a problem

Indeed it does.

Heart2Soul · Aug 5, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
That has exactly nothing to do with anything I posted.

Again, the Church was facing a very specific array of political and social circumstances during the time in which the New Testament was written. Acting as though those circumstances are normative willfully ignores reality.

Come to that, it also ignores history, where so-called "institutional" parishes had become the norm. If this "institutional" model is wrong, why did it persist for century upon century without a problem?

Yep, even God requires a Holy Temple where He can enter in...temples were the same as church buildings...in purpose. To gather together to worship Him. IMHO.

Oldmantook · Aug 5, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
This also has nothing to do with anything I posted.

PS- Romans 14 ends with verse 23. There is no Romans 14:26.

Thank you for the correction. I quoted the wrong book which should have been. 1 Cor 14:26.

thecolorsblend said:
Indeed it does.

You're entitled to your opinion.

thecolorsblend · Aug 5, 2019

Oldmantook said:
1 Cor 14:26.

You're citing that again?

Quoting that passage out of context as some kind of imaginary scriptural support for home ecclesial communities borders on being non-sequitur. That passage does not address home communities in any obvious way.

Moreover, the so-called institutional model has a multiple century track record of success.

As a broader point, I have said that the home meetings which the New Testament describe were peculiar to the first century but were hardly intended to be the norm for Christian fellowship. As I understand it, the argument in support of home ecclesial communities comes in no small part from a line of thought similar to "That's what the first century Church did!" Presumably, I'm supposed to believe that's evidence of something or other.

But to run with the basic premise of the first century Church being normative, they believed quite a lot of things which, I assume, you categorically reject.

So how is it then that the first century Church's home fellowship model is apparently normative and instructive (even though no quote from Sacred Scripture has so far been presented which clearly enjoins the faithful to meet in private homes) but the first century Church's doctrinal beliefs are, I gather, freely rejected by this home community movement?

Oldmantook · Aug 5, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
You're citing that again?

Quoting that passage out of context as some kind of imaginary scriptural support for home ecclesial communities borders on being non-sequitur. That passage does not address home communities in any obvious way.

Moreover, the so-called institutional model has a multiple century track record of success.

As a broader point, I have said that the home meetings which the New Testament describe were peculiar to the first century but were hardly intended to be the norm for Christian fellowship. As I understand it, the argument in support of home ecclesial communities comes in no small part from a line of thought similar to "That's what the first century Church did!" Presumably, I'm supposed to believe that's evidence of something or other.

But to run with the basic premise of the first century Church being normative, they believed quite a lot of things which, I assume, you categorically reject.

So how is it then that the first century Church's home fellowship model is apparently normative and instructive (even though no quote from Sacred Scripture has so far been presented which clearly enjoins the faithful to meet in private homes) but the first century Church's doctrinal beliefs are, I gather, freely rejected by this home community movement?

Read the verse again. I quote it again because you neglect to deal with it and instead settle for your personal opinion which I reject as unscriptural. The point of the verse is that Paul expected every part of the body to participate when the church gathers together. That is how the body is edified since all learn how to use their gifts and exercise love toward one another. It today's Western church the adage is that 20% of the people do 100% of work while the rest of the 80% remain spectators. I did not claim that home church is the model as the same thing can happen in home church where only a few participate. The idea is that since the Holy Spirit gives every person a spiritual gift, EACH ONE should use it when we gather together - no matter where we meet. Comprende?

thecolorsblend · Aug 6, 2019

Oldmantook said:
Read the verse again. I quote it again because you neglect to deal with it

I’ve addressed it twice, taking particular care the second time to explain why I believe it is quite completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Most other people would interpret that as an invitation to clarify on why they have quoted that particular passage as well as the relevance (real or perceived) which it has to the discussion at hand.

In this case, however, that clarification remains elusive. For that reason, the perception that a passage of Sacred Scripture was quoted at random remains.

Oldmantook said:
unscriptural

I don’t know what this word means. I don’t think it means anything.

Oldmantook · Aug 6, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
I’ve addressed it twice, taking particular care the second time to explain why I believe it is quite completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Most other people would interpret that as an invitation to clarify on why they have quoted that particular passage as well as the relevance (real or perceived) which it has to the discussion at hand.

In this case, however, that clarification remains elusive. For that reason, the perception that a passage of Sacred Scripture was quoted at random remains.

I don’t know what this word means. I don’t think it means anything.

Really? You never expounded on the verse so perhaps you don't even comprehend its meaning much less its application? You have failed to address Paul's instructions of what he expected should happen when the church gathers together to meet (whether they meet in facilities or homes). He stated that "each of you" has a spiritual gift to contribute for the edification of the body when it meets. Your institutional model does not meet that standard of mutual participation as most church goers sit in the pew and spectate - the greatest spectator sport on Sundays takes place in the church sanctuary and not in the football stadiums. The paid pastoral staff use their gifts as well as the volunteers but the vast majority of the church goers simply "attend." So much for your institutional church model.

thecolorsblend · Aug 6, 2019

Oldmantook said:
Really? You never expounded on the verse so perhaps you don't even comprehend its meaning much less its application?

Um, it's not my job to "expound" on your sources.

Oldmantook said:
You have failed to address Paul's instructions of what he expected should happen when the church gathers together to meet

I still don't grasp what the connection of that passage to this discussion is even supposed to be. And that is in spite of having said so at least three times now.

Oldmantook said:
He stated that "each of you" has a spiritual gift to contribute for the edification of the body when it meets.

Yes, I got that much. The part I'm still a bit fuzzy on is what that has to do with the home ecclesial communities vs. the so-called institutional model.

I suppose if you wanted bonus points, you could also explain how that passage justifies what I presume is your support pro-home ecclesial communities.

Oldmantook said:
Your institutional model does not meet that standard of mutual participation as most church goers sit in the pew and spectate

That's unknown and unknowable, particularly given that you have not provided sources for this claim.

Even if it's true though, you have not demonstrated (with sources) that the home ecclesial community is much different.

As a general statement, it appears to me that you have some strange ax to grind when it comes to the so-called institutional model.

Oldmantook said:
The paid pastoral staff use their gifts as well as the volunteers but the vast majority of the church goers simply "attend."

[Citation needed]

Oldmantook · Aug 6, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Um, it's not my job to "expound" on your sources.

I still don't grasp what the connection of that passage to this discussion is even supposed to be. And that is in spite of having said so at least three times now.

Yes, I got that much. The part I'm still a bit fuzzy on is what that has to do with the home ecclesial communities vs. the so-called institutional model.

I suppose if you wanted bonus points, you could also explain how that passage justifies what I presume is your support pro-home ecclesial communities.

That's unknown and unknowable, particularly given that you have not provided sources for this claim.

Even if it's true though, you have not demonstrated (with sources) that the home ecclesial community is much different.

As a general statement, it appears to me that you have some strange ax to grind when it comes to the so-called institutional model.

[Citation needed]

Do you deny that the institutional model does not promote everyone participating in the church service on Sundays? When is the last time you saw everyone share by having a psalm/song, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation? The verse states that all of these are done for edification and by implication when these things are not done, the church remains unedified. The paid professional might do this but highly unlikely as the institutional church services are led by the order of service as dictated by the printed church bulletin instead of the leading of the Holy Spirit. (Staff Edit)

SwordmanJr · Aug 8, 2019

Resha Caner said:
All the true believers. Got it. I think I've heard some of the institutional churches you decry say the same thing. Maybe you are the same as them after all.

Umm. No. There's no reason to demonize my statement simply because I made a universal reference to those who are true followers who simply accept what scripture says contrasted with those who follow after teachings from their pulpits about christs who do not measure up to the One described in the Bible. The Bible is therefore the standard by which I measure the many different "christs" various of the groupings claim is THE "lord," and yet do not much resemble the One we read about as described and defined to us by the apostles.

So, I don't understand why you would have a problem with my drawing a line of distinction on the basis of the very instruction we have been given by God Himself, which is to judge others on the basis of "righteous judgement" rather than the appearance.

Jr.

SwordmanJr · Aug 8, 2019

Resha Caner said:
No. That's something you added to what I said.

I added nothing. I drew the line of comparable parallel. When it quacks like a duck, then....

No, it doesn't. But now it's your turn. What "authority" do you think is appropriate for the Church?

Teaching - authority. Those who teach are exercising the authority for the doctrinal stance of that gathering. Notice the hyphen. My usage of that denotes the simile. In other words, they are synonymous.

If you expect me to add to that an exercise of the one man as the authority over each individual in the gathering, such as to how they will function in Christ, that is tyranny, not authority handed down to the hirelings by the Lord. Jesus retains the Headship over the (C)hurch as a whole.

I know some folks who were/are members of organizations headed up by tyrants who exercise a level of authority over them that clearly is outside the scope and bounds of biblical oversight. That's the model of perpetual sheepdom that is on a level of brainwashing that dominates many people's thinking about their huddle they call their (c)hurch. You can disagree with that, which is fine. I don't mind.

As for myself, I try to be as objective as possible by measuring it all with the biblical measuring stick rather than the subjective thinking fostered and ingrained into so many by religious group-think and religious bandwagoneering foisted upon them by antiquity and sheer wealth and numbers that some have as their backing for what they think is THE golden seal of credibility from God Himself. No. I don't subscribe to such blindness. Warm fuzzies about what one has chosen to support through membership is not an objective measure for credibility nor superiority. Human pride is meaningless when ran up against the immovable pillars of what is REAL and TRUTH.

So, no model is superior in totality. Each one has its drawbacks because each one is populated by imperfect humanity. When two or three gather in the name of Christ Jesus, just as it is written, He is in their midst. We have that promise, no matter how butchered that one verse has become by those trapped and mired down into the filth of institutionalized pride. Leadership within each that does not only see, but also EXERCISE the reality of the Headship of Christ Jesus over all, even their petty doctrines, they are right out there with the rest of the garbage being fed to their followers, whick amounts to no more than the usual diet Satan forks over onto their plates on a weekly and even daily basis.

Does that seem extreme? Perhaps. Some may feel a prick of guilt, or even anger. I would advise such to sit back and think by asking, "Hmm. Why would I feel something like this from what he said? Might there be some truth to it in relation to what I'm a part of right now? Might the Lord be calling me to move on to something else, somewhere else, to become someone I've never aspired to be before...to grow in spiritual stature beyond anything I have ever known before? Hmm..."

Jr

SwordmanJr · Aug 8, 2019

marineimaging said:
To answer very simply, when Jesus called the 12 disciples to follow him he developed the first organized congregation of the first church of Jesus Christ. No, it wasn't in a building and yes, it was conducted in homes and on walkabouts, but, why do you assume that everybody who attends a fixed church is brainwashed?

Where in the OP did I say they're all "brainwashed?"

As to your claim for them being an "organized congregation," pehaps you could define those terms for us.

From my viewpoint, having lived both, the organized church body might have its problems but it has its strong points as well. For one, by working in an organized fashion it has many eyes on the process. Many minds working together to keep on track in terms of answering the call of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

That sounds idealistic. So, do you think those are defining parameters for them all? I fully agree with you that no model is perfect. I never implied that in the OP, although some assume that into my words. I've repeated the existence of down-sides to all the models, and that being the reality because any model mankind may be a part is still populated by fallen man.

What do you suppose is prime purpose for the gathering of believers, orregardless of whatever model any gathering may be expressed within?

Secondly, no organized churches efforts would, or should, stop someone from having home meetings, out in a park, coffee shop, a forest, et al, etc.,. The question of superiority as claimed by these "dudes" has been a point of merit for many centuries. The organized church has it's place for many people. Me included.

The straw man of the institutional model keeping home or forest meetings from happening is just that. I don't recall anyone suggesting the institutional model entertains such a level of influence. I agree with you that any grouping will see itself as having legitimate merits arising from what they do, think, and how they function. Each one sees itself as legitimate and biblical. Heck, they can even point out what they think are references to their pastoral model on almost every page of the NT, never minding that the plurality of elders and the "brethren" (a gender specific reference as evidenced in the Greek from which that word is translated) are addressed more than 50+ times more than singular "pastors" throughout the totality of the NT.

So, we agree on a number of points, need some clarification on others, and may disagree on yet others. That's all cool. I'm only questioning the claims of superiority by members of one model over any other.

Jr

SwordmanJr · Aug 8, 2019

Oldmantook said:
I always felt guilty rec'g a salary generated from the collection of tithes though of course I myself tithed. The tithe is the lifeline of the institutional church yet this OT principle has been grossly distorted for the purpose of keeping the church afloat. Only later did I find out that the OT was never about the giving of monies.

You got that sooooo right. The OT tithe never had anything to do with not only money (except in the case of the appointed place being too far away to transport the tithe), but it also never had ANYTHING to do with the earned wages of wage earners. That fact remains mostly unrevealed by those who preach from behind their pulpits, and still hammer on the false doctrine of tithing. That alone is enough to keep any of the many church organizations that hammer on tithes from attempting to approach superiority to any other model or organization.

So, what do they do? They simply adapt to the known truths by then claiming Abraham established the "principle" of tithing to a church organization under the guise of it "supporting God's work." That's an oldie, but a goodie. First of all, Abraham established no "principle" for tithing because not even Israel followed his example at any point throughout her history. They fail to mention that Abraham's personal wealth was still located way up in northern Canaan when he met up with Melchizedek way down in the south. Oops. The sin of omission, or is it ignorance? Falsehood is falsehood, no matter what context it is found.

So, if someone inside some model is going to try and lay claim to being a part of a superior model, then they should make darn good and sure it qualifies in all its expressions. The continuance of falsehoods like this is the earmark of a man-made paradigm that could not have ever originated from God, for the Lord is never the author of confusions and lies toward His people.

Jr.

Resha Caner · Aug 8, 2019

Trying some cherry-picking I see. OK ...

SwordmanJr said:
Teaching - authority.

Who taught you?

SwordmanJr · Aug 8, 2019

Resha Caner said:
Trying some cherry-picking I see. OK ...

Who taught you?

The most meaningful and full of truth of all instruction any of us could ever receive is summarized in 1 John 2:27.

I'm sure there are those who will find fault with the above. When mere men find fault with scripture, that's when we see them for what they really are in relation to their lack of love for truth.

Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Jr

Resha Caner · Aug 9, 2019

SwordmanJr said:
The most meaningful and full of truth of all instruction any of us could ever receive is summarized in 1 John 2:27.

Like I said - cherry-picking. One verse. One verse out of the 23,145 in the Bible defines your philosophy on teaching even though I'm sure you know there are others that say something different than what you're trying to do with 1 John - pulling it out of context and twisting it.

So when God gives us apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers as described in Ephesians 4:11 he's making a mistake? Or maybe you're the special prophet of God who doesn't need them - above Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and John (Matthew 11:11)?

You seem to have a problem with authority. Are you above the law?

How old are you? You sound 20-ish - out of high school but no college or professional training, underemployed, no family responsibilities, etc.

SwordmanJr · Aug 15, 2019

Resha Caner said:
Like I said - cherry-picking. One verse. One verse out of the 23,145 in the Bible defines your philosophy on teaching even though I'm sure you know there are others that say something different than what you're trying to do with 1 John - pulling it out of context and twisting it.

You do indeed blunder to think that I based it all on one or two verses. However, you're free to think the worst about others as you wish...picking and choosing the worst contrived elements from what they say, fabricate the rest in order to try and make it a holistic panorama that constructs your fantasies about their knowledge and character as opposed to the reality.

So when God gives us apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers as described in Ephesians 4:11 he's making a mistake? Or maybe you're the special prophet of God who doesn't need them - above Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and John (Matthew 11:11)?

In all of scripture, I have yet to see where it demands that all non-degreed, non-hired, non-ordained "laity" (as we're called) en mass, remain no more than bleeting sheep under the ordained, trained and hired "pastors".

Again, you're free to assume all you want as a hard-line institutionalist, and remain under the perpetual tutelage of mere men. Some of us, although mutually accountable as IS commanded, are flying the upper air currents of functionality in the body. If you wish to continue heating that pew when present, then go for it. That's your lot in life. Many choose to become useful in the Hands of the Almighty, actively evangelizing AND actively discipling new believers rather than leaving it all to Sunday school classes, sermons and Bible studies. That's not a stab at you personally, just an acknowledgement that there are indeed much higher levels of functional service unto the Lord.

You seem to have a problem with authority. Are you above the law?

Oh, brother. Here we go again with the "authority" dodge. If only you realized how worn out and pathetic that mantra is in light of the totality of scripture and spiritual growth. Like I said, you can wallow around in that mire of perpetual sheepdom all you want. Keep drinking milk if you like. For you to venture out into that wilderness to discover what you're really made of, that might prove to be too much for you, because your crutches will inevitably snap off among the rocks and fissures in the sands of that wilderness.

As before, please remain in that rut where you are. Don't venture out here where the sometimes dry and harsh winds of reality force one into experience after experience with God. I've never heard anyone claim it was boring to experience God's power. Perhaps you would be the first. (shrug) Who knows? Suffice it to say that your attempts at belittling my beliefs and my position on things are laughably futile. I do not begrudge you the freedom to assume whatever you wish.

How old are you? You sound 20-ish - out of high school but no college or professional training, underemployed, no family responsibilities, etc.

I'm old enough to remember the state and condition of this nation LONG before we ever made it to the moon, and my degrees and life experiences have brought about the character of a man who refuses to stoop to your level of stick poking of others to prod them into falling head-long into your ditch. (grin)

Like I said, you go ahead and enjoy your fantasies and dreams about having discernment. You know nothing, and should remain as such. You're a good comic relief to break up the occasional monotony.

Jr

The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

Texas Baptist now living in Colorado

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Expert Fool

Double-edged Sword only

Expert Fool

Double-edged Sword only

Similar threads