The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

[☦Marius☦]

"Deal with."

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

Yea I need a shirt with a painting of that to wear around Christmas. Saint Nick, punching heretics and performing miracles since the 4th century.

 

[Oldmantook]

Can't argue with that except to say I know of a few exceptions.

Agreed; always exceptions to the general rule.

 

[Oldmantook]

In the West, yes, particularly the US.

But then, what is your particular definition of "the institution church?"

Organization vs. organism. In general, a hierarchical organization that prioritizes the growth and maintenance of the organization over the growth and development of the organism. By default, the structure and operation of the organization consisting of its facilities and staff become more important than the organism which is the body of believers. In effect the institutional church ends up being the one served instead of the one serving. Another notable aspect is that in the institutional church, ministry is performed by a select few who are paid instead of all parts of the body functioning in their proper places. The distinction between clergy and lay persons is left intact despite our supposed belief in the priesthood of all believers. Thus the staff and volunteers end up doing 80% of the work while the rest of the 20% spectate. This is dysfunctional by any standard.
I realize this is a harsh indictment but you asked my opinion which is borne out of my experience as a seminary trained staff pastor and one who has sat in the pews. There are churches which are exceptions to the rule but I think they are far and few between.

 

[Oldmantook]

Compare/contrast models like this fail to take into account the many and varied social, political and even spiritual differences the Early Church faced as compared to what the Church today faces.

In the ancient world, it was not unheard of for women to be segregated from men during worship. But, as I think most of us would admit, that fact does not obligate the Church today to segregate women from men during worship.

Again, people are welcome to do whatever they like. But this home community thing is just bizarre.

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.

 

[Oldmantook]

Yes? And how many judges and kings of Israel had to do similar things? Both those people attempted to assassinate Constantine, you do what you have to do when you are a ruler.

As for what you say about theology - is easy for you to say that now when all these things have been firmly established, but all you have to do is look at history and all the theological debate and chaos in the early church to see that what you claim is not the case.

Am I to believe that you really believe that a "Christian" ruler is justified in murdering people - in particular one's own family? There is no evidence that those put to death attempted to assassinate Constantine as you are merely offering your own conjecture. Certainly, attempted assassination is a crime which warrants capital punishment such as public hanging on a cross in those times but isn't it peculiar that Constantine instead chose to use rather surreptitious methods to kill his family which undermines your claim. The OT never commends wrong-doing by the kings of Israel which is often times why Israel was judged as its leaders/kings kept on sinning resulting in Israel's judgment despite God's long-suffering.
The gospel has always been so simple that even a child can understand it. You have chosen to take the opposite approach preferring the incomplete formulation of doctrine as the rationale for excusing people's lack of understanding and compliance of what is plainly demanded of in Scripture. That is of course your prerogative. I prefer to believe the words of Jesus when he stated “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:3).

 

[☦Marius☦]

Am I to believe that you really believe that a "Christian" ruler is justified in murdering people - in particular one's own family? There is no evidence that those put to death attempted to assassinate Constantine as you are merely offering your own conjecture. Certainly, attempted assassination is a crime which warrants capital punishment such as public hanging on a cross in those times but isn't it peculiar that Constantine instead chose to use rather surreptitious methods to kill his family which undermines your claim. The OT never commends wrong-doing by the kings of Israel which is often times why Israel was judged as its leaders/kings kept on sinning resulting in Israel's judgment despite God's long-suffering.
The gospel has always been so simple that even a child can understand it. You have chosen to take the opposite approach preferring the incomplete formulation of doctrine as the rationale for excusing people's lack of understanding and compliance of what is plainly demanded of in Scripture. That is of course your prerogative. I prefer to believe the words of Jesus when he stated “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:3).

Considering the top suspicion historically by the accounts of people at that time was that Crispus and Fausta were in a sexual relationship with each other, and plotting against Constantine, it would be justified. I say attempt to assassinate in the sense of a plot, not a failed attempt- the strike was pre-emptive. What is the real difference between assassination and execution as a ruler? None. Why? Because Romans were notorious for revolting in support of various claimants.

You judge a man on a situation historically murky at best. I side with the Christian Saints who knew him at the time, not the biased opinions of modern secular scholars who you have accepted. Judging me by telling me I am rejecting the gospel because of this is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Redwingfan9]

North Koreans can't worship in public, and I know the details of this better than many (I did an official military intelligence analysis of the condition of North Korean Christians back in the mid-90s). Christians in North Korea were tortured so horribly that I saw a combat-hardened Marine colonel get three pages into my report, turn white as a sheet, and push it away saying, "I can't read any more of that."

But they do evangelize--under incredibly dangerous conditions, because a North Korean Christian never knows if the person he mentions Christ to won't be the person who turns him in.

Yet...the Body of Christ has grown tenfold in North Korea since the mid 90s.

The Holy Ghost historically has worked wonders during times of persecution. I don't doubt for a moment that every single North Korean Christian prays for the day that they can worship in public and without fear of persecution.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think earlier you asked me do I believe the apostles were inspired by God? I think scripture is inspired by God I can’t say to what extent that is.....

I'm not sure the extent to which you accept inspiration matters in regard to my point. Whatever that extent is, it means the apostle who wrote those words knows more of God's intended message than you do. That gives them more expertise - more authority on the subject - than you or me. I'm willing to be subject to that authority.

With regard to the extent of their inspiration, I'd point you to Shannon's Law if you have some familiarity with the science of signal processing. If not, all I would say is that if you don't accept what the apostles wrote as inspired, then I don't know why you would quote me that Christ sent the Spirit to guide us into truth. If God hasn't guided anyone - or if we can't know that God has guided anyone - the statement is pointless, whoever said it was deceived, and we have no hope.

I do however have a question about this authority you are taking about. When you say a place for authority do you mean as in someone, or a group of people who get to decide what interpretation of scripture is correct?

No, that's not what I'm talking about. But don't assume that is the only means by which a person can hold authority (i.e. by just an opinion). When I give instruction to my engineering team at work, I'm not insisting they listen because of my opinion but because I have 30 years experience with the machines we work on along with extensive instruction from world-wide experts in the field.

For some backyard grease monkey to respond to that with: "Pfft. Institutionalized engineering is just a power play to rule the world. I feel better about getting advice from my barber." ... it's just silly.

 

[Oldmantook]

Considering the top suspicion historically by the accounts of people at that time was that Crispus and Fausta were in a sexual relationship with each other, and plotting against Constantine, it would be justified. I say attempt to assassinate in the sense of a plot, not a failed attempt- the strike was pre-emptive. What is the real difference between assassination and execution as a ruler? None. Why? Because Romans were notorious for revolting in support of various claimants.

You judge a man on a situation historically murky at best. I side with the Christian Saints who knew him at the time, not the biased opinions of modern secular scholars who you have accepted. Judging me by telling me I am rejecting the gospel because of this is utterly ridiculous.

Indeed, historically murky which is why we disagree. May I ask where I wrote that you are rejecting the gospel? I can recall no such thing as the basis for your accusation.

 

[topher694]

Interesting how this topic can get people stirred up. Clearly, I like the "model" we use at our church. However, I would much prefer to see folks meeting together in the name of Jesus than not, regardless of the model that they use. Where two or three are gathered together in His name, He is there with you! Let's do some gathering together and let Jesus do what He does best!

 

[Christopher0121]

In many cases it is. I'm not fond of the American Church Concert approach to Christianity. It's an outgrowth of the 1960s and Baby Boomer seekers. But institutional churches don't mean personal spiritual care doesn't happen. Just last night my wife and I had dinner with close friends from our "institutional church", and we spent the evening talking about Christ. At that same church I know people who, if I asked for help, would drop everything and be there in minutes.

That's great that you know people in church you can truly fellowship with and bond with outside of church.

But for us, that is the substance of "church" itself.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no evidence that those put to death attempted to assassinate Constantine as you are merely offering your own conjecture.

I don't know of any evidence at all that agrees with all Scripture , to even try to show that Constantine or those with him were ever right. Rather, the objective true evidence supports that they were continually wrong and wicked.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's great that you know people in church you can truly fellowship with and bond with outside of church.

But for us, that is the substance of "church" itself.

First of all Christ is the reason for Church - the substance. Without that, it's no different than any other group of friends who share a common interest. It might as well be a Lady GaGa fan club.

Still, people look for a number of different things. I get that. And while it's hard for any one congregation to be all things to all people, I don't understand why anyone would want to doctrinally exclude what some people might be looking for - label it insincere, accuse it of oppression, etc.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Well, that's your definition, but it's not mine and not necessarily the OP's.

But you have not given your description of what the church organization should be.

Hmm. I'm surprised anyone would ask that of me or any other man. There is only one Head, and that Head prayed unto the Father that we, the (C)hurch would be one, not many factions and schisms with four walls around each. For example, I wish the (C)hurch in my city were unified as Christ had prayed, but the institutionalized model dominates because each group has such pride in their pet doctrines and their "independence" as "a (c)hurch" and the ir desire to follow their "leader".

Thus my questioning of the sentiment that such a model is superior. I fully agree that no one model is perfect. Those who defend the model they prefer love that one as their go-to, as if it justifies the actual lack of unity we all should have. I consider myself connected to all other true believers around the world by way of us being members of that ONE body. Tragically, most of us tend to populate the membership roles of an institutional model that does not practice unity with all others.

Jr

 

[Resha Caner]

I consider myself connected to all other true believers around the world by way of us being members of that ONE body.

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.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Indeed, historically murky which is why we disagree. May I ask where I wrote that you are rejecting the gospel? I can recall no such thing as the basis for your accusation.

You claimed I take the opposite approach to the simplicity of the gospel

 

[SwordmanJr]

Compare/contrast models like this fail to take into account the many and varied social, political and even spiritual differences the Early Church faced as compared to what the Church today faces.

Yep. That's another one of those oldie excuses for continuing with the desired paradigms. Society, culture, economics, abortion, homosexuality, men marrying their dinner plates or their favorite horse, all as defining forces for why we should be as we are. That does indeed draw in the less critical in their thinking. How is it that our nation is plummeting into the pits of immorality if the schismatic, institutional model is superior to other models, especially when considering our modern world as it is? I can't quite grasp that one. Evil has gained a tremendous amount of power over our lives under the watchful eyes of the many, many institutional (c)hurch organizations, and even the vatican itself. How long before we hear from the vatican that homosexuality, in the context of a "loving relationship" is acceptable to the (c)hurch?

I've long since learned to never say "never" in this modern age of ours. But, hey, there's nothing new under the sun, right? So, I still ask, why is the institutional model superior given the current state of our nation?

In the ancient world, it was not unheard of for women to be segregated from men during worship. But, as I think most of us would admit, that fact does not obligate the Church today to segregate women from men during worship.

Who in here suggested such? I must have missed it. Poisoning the well with something unrelated to the array of distinctives and comparatives seems more like a red herring.

Again, people are welcome to do whatever they like. But this home community thing is just bizarre.

I fully agree that people can do what they want. However, you finding the home model to be "bizarre" is itself bereft of any rational reasoning for me to see any merits in such. Every model is imperfect. So, please explain for us why you think the model you attend and support is superior. That's the thrust of this thread.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

I don't have any special definitions. Just the usual one: the right to control, command, or determine.

Ahh. Ok. I see. You see it as being pretty much like any secular business model with a CEO. Well, that does define the basic structure of most any given (c)hurch you see with a facility and staffing within. I fully agree that a (c)hurch organization has every right to set up whatever authority structure they wish.

We even had one here locally where the CEO (pastor) decided that wife swapping was going to be an acceptable practice to spice up his and other couple's marriages, and he succeeded in getting a number of other married couples involved with him and his wife...until a follower with an understanding of absolute, biblical morality got wind of it, and blew the whistle to the rest of the audience/members. Then they split down the middle over it. Both have reestablished in different neighborhoods, and both are slowly growing. Both accept the leadership they have, and the authority they exercise.

Isn't freedom great?

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Organization vs. organism. In general, a hierarchical organization that prioritizes the growth and maintenance of the organization over the growth and development of the organism. By default, the structure and operation of the organization consisting of its facilities and staff become more important than the organism which is the body of believers...

I remember an article that Christianity Today published about (c)hurch organization spending. The nationwide survey they did of more than 80,000 respondent organizations reported that more than 80% of them absorb more than 88% of what they take in from the membership's "tithe/giving" in order to support the facility, programs and staffing expenditures.

That is a radical departure from the biblical model for what was done with the OT tithe, and with the primary giving of the first century (C)hurch. So, my initial question in the OP continues to grow massively large legs for support as to how the modern, institutional model is superior?

Jr

 

[Resha Caner]

Ahh. Ok. I see. You see it as being pretty much like any secular business model with a CEO.

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

Well, that does define the basic structure of most any given (c)hurch you see with a facility and staffing within.

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