The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

[Resha Caner]

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)

You are funny. A single one of your posts contains more ad hominems than I use in a year, yet you accuse me of "stick poking". A certain level of civility is required before a serious discussion can take place. Are you willing to do that?

 

[SwordmanJr]

You are funny. A single one of your posts contains more ad hominems than I use in a year, yet you accuse me of "stick poking". A certain level of civility is required before a serious discussion can take place. Are you willing to do that?

Indeed? So calling your claims about me as being no more than assumptions is some sort of "ad hominem" in your books? You might want to read up on the definition of ad hominem.

Jr

 

[Resha Caner]

Indeed? So calling your claims about me as being no more than assumptions is some sort of "ad hominem" in your books? You might want to read up on the definition of ad hominem.

ad hominem: Something directed at the person rather than their position.

In our discussion of authority, rather than addressing what I said, you replied that:

I am a hard-line institutionalist who is only heating that pew and not useful in the Hands of the Almighty, but rather worn out and pathetic. I wallow around in that mire of perpetual sheepdom because anything else would prove to be too much. I am hobbled by crutches, know nothing, and am only good comic relief to break up the occasional monotony.

And that was only one post.

So you answered my question: No, you're not interested in civil discussion.

 

[SwordmanJr]

It all sounds worse when pulled out of context as to what those responses were addressing.

Jr

 

[Resha Caner]

It all sounds worse when pulled out of context as to what those responses were addressing.

It would go better if such phrases were absent all together. If we can proceed that way, would you allow me to put forth an example for discussion?

Would you agree parents have a responsibility to feed their children? Do you think that is something most people throughout society would agree is a responsibility?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Do you deny that the institutional model does not promote everyone participating in the church service on Sundays?

Define "participating". What does "participating" look like in your opinion?

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?

In corporate worship? Never. In group Bible studies? Frequently.

The verse states that all of these are done for edification and by implication when these things are not done, the church remains unedified.

Good thing they're done then, eh?

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)

As a Catholic, my worship is done in a liturgical model. Well, Protestants have a liturgy too, I suppose. But my Church is willing to put theirs in writing. So whatevs.

My point is that Mass is not really the place for what you describe. It is for hearing readings from Sacred Scripture, listening to the homily and receiving the Blessed Sacrament. The edification you can't seem to stop talking about can and does happen in other settings. Mass is simply not the place for that in most cases.

 

[Oldmantook]

Define "participating". What does "participating" look like in your opinion?

In corporate worship? Never. In group Bible studies? Frequently.

Good thing they're done then, eh?

As a Catholic, my worship is done in a liturgical model. Well, Protestants have a liturgy too, I suppose. But my Church is willing to put theirs in writing. So whatevs.

My point is that Mass is not really the place for what you describe. It is for hearing readings from Sacred Scripture, listening to the homily and receiving the Blessed Sacrament. The edification you can't seem to stop talking about can and does happen in other settings. Mass is simply not the place for that in most cases.

Problem is the way in which mass (and most Protestant services) are conducted contradicts Paul's specific instructions in 1 Cor 14:26 as to what to do WHENEVER the body of Christ gathers to meet.
What then, brothers and sisters? Whenever you come together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, another tongue, or an interpretation. Everything is to be done for building up.
Does that take place in Mass? If not, why not. Are you relying on tradition or Scripture?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Problem is the way in which mass (and most Protestant services) are conducted contradicts Paul's specific instructions

St. Paul's "clear instructions" should not necessarily be assumed to apply to worship.

in 1 Cor 14:26

There are other passages of scripture, you know.

as to what to do WHENEVER the body of Christ gathers to meet.

Does CAPITALIZING a word somehow give your interpretation of the passage some kind of extra authority? If so, why not bold and CAPITALIZE the word? You know, for extra emphasis. Or something, idk.

Are you relying on tradition or Scripture?

I rely on Sacred Tradition to recognize Sacred Scripture. You do as well. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that the canon you cling comes from Sacred Tradition.

 

[Oldmantook]

St. Paul's "clear instructions" should not necessarily be assumed to apply to worship.

There are other passages of scripture, you know.

Does CAPITALIZING a word somehow give your interpretation of the passage some kind of extra authority? If so, why not bold and CAPITALIZE the word? You know, for extra emphasis. Or something, idk.

I rely on Sacred Tradition to recognize Sacred Scripture. You do as well. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that the canon you cling comes from Sacred Tradition.

Whenever you meet means whenever in English. You choose to redefine it for your convenience. Whenever you meet for worship, you are bound by Paul's instructions; not your own traditions.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Whenever you meet for worship

Careful. Don't add to scripture so that it says what you want it to say.

 

[Oldmantook]

Careful. Don't add to scripture so that it says what you want it to say.

Don't you worship whenever you meet for mass? Be careful. Don't add to scripture by your own traditions.

 

[SwordmanJr]

It would go better if such phrases were absent all together. If we can proceed that way, would you allow me to put forth an example for discussion?

Would you agree parents have a responsibility to feed their children? Do you think that is something most people throughout society would agree is a responsibility?

We can hop-skip over details to try and get to the gist of what you're getting at, but I will indeed agree that feeding is necessary. I never had any problem with preaching/teaching in and of itself. A group of people have every right to hire and support a preacher to teach and encourage them. That's a great freedom here in the West.

My OP had to do with a sentiment that seems to dominate the thinking of many of the members of the institutional scene. You see, the model within which I live and breath has more to do with active discipleship of new converts, which is more like a family relationship since we get together more than just once or twice a week. We meet together sometimes daily for ongoing teaching, instruction and mutual edification. We communicate daily most days when proximity is not feasible. This is intentional rather than based upon Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night time frame. It's face to face on many days, and emails and texts on many others.

In other words, we intentionally forge intentional discipleship to get new Christians soaring with the eagles, with no expectation that they continue attending our meetings and supporting the staffing and facility. So, we are different in a number of ways from the institutional model. That doesn't make us superior per se, and the lack of buildings and professional staffing doesn't make institutionalism superior. If those who were once on milk and later meat decide they want to branch off and start their own ministry, they are backed by us all. If they prefer to remain and disciple others, then great. The Lord is Lord.

So, in keeping with the OP, I therefore continue to question the claim that the institutional model is somehow superior to others. For some, it's their possession of buildings that has them raising their noses to the sky in prideful indifference to their fleshly problems. For others, it's their "pastor" that they seek only to follow in perpetuity without ever really caring if they mature in the faith to the point that they could function effectively outside the institutional model. There are many thousands of combinations of variant hypotheticals we could talk about, but the question remains as to the final analysis for superiority.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Don't you worship whenever you meet for mass? Be careful. Don't add to scripture by your own traditions.

My personal take on worship is that it isn't something people flip on like a light switch when they walk into a special purpose facility or room. Worship is something we all should be doing on a daily basis, moment to moment. I got that from what Jesus told the Samaritan woman when He stated that the day was coming (and has long since passed) when they would no longer worship in temples or on mountains, but "...in spirit and in truth..." Those two words describe a way of life, but just something contrived within some "sanctuary" with special mood music and soothing, ceremonial words. As priests unto the Might High God, we all are responsible for our living out of worship. Those who worship only when entering into a special production of religious exercise, music and whatever other trappings men have created for his own enjoyment, that all pales when compared to daily living. Corporate worship is fine, but individual worship and relationship where the rubber of life meets the road on a daily basis, and is what empowers our worship with others with what is acceptable before the Lord. The idea that one needs only try to worship during a corporate scene, and that such is acceptable in and of itself devoid of it being a way of life for them, they fool only themselves.

Besides, the idea that praise and worship are synonymous, that is a myth. Anyone can praise, even when making a "joyful noise unto the Lord." Worship...now that is special. It is expressed in the midst of noise and in silence. It can be done walking down the street, along rail road tracks, riding a train, driving on the interstate, et al. So can praise, but worship...well, it's something special that should be a way of life, not just some ceremonial practice men have created for others to follow. They seem to miss what Jesus said to that woman.

So, any ideas that an orchestrated production of religious vigor in a special purpose facility and "sanctuary" is somehow superior to other models that lack a facility and established ritual for what they call "corporate worship" is a sentiment lacking in what may be deemed as any longer being legitimate as the Lord's chosen establishment. Worship is dynamic and relational. Even prayer is relational and dynamic because Jesus stated that when we do it, to enter into our "closet" (in the English translation). We can do that walking down the sidewalk, in the forest, in malls, at work, on a train, et al. Relationship is that dynamic.

Jr.

 

[Resha Caner]

We can hop-skip over details to try and get to the gist

I thought the details would be informative, but I shouldn't assume this thread was for my benefit.

That doesn't make us superior per se, and the lack of buildings and professional staffing doesn't make institutionalism superior.

You've said similar things several times. But all you've mentioned are the positive aspects of your approach and the negative aspect of other approaches. Have you experienced any difficulties with your approach? Do you see any benefits to institutions?

 

[SwordmanJr]

You've said similar things several times. But all you've mentioned are the positive aspects of your approach and the negative aspect of other approaches. Have you experienced any difficulties with your approach? Do you see any benefits to institutions?

There are positives in both, as well as negatives, which is summarized in my blanket statement when I said that there is no perfect grouping nor model so long as fallen mankind is involved.

The negative for the non-institutional models are that many people tend to remain sponges since they were not raised up with the expectation that when believers gather together, each one has something to share that can edify and fill the others present. Many therefore remain in the pattern of fading into the woodwork, soaking up whatever flies their way, but never making any attempt to be vessels willing to pour out upon others.

Jr