This "non-institutional" brand is so weird to me. So, how do they define "institutional"? Does that refer to Catholicism as an "institute"? What the hell is an institute to them? I presume ALL other churches in their minds are "institutional"? That word is not in scripture, so they contradict themselves when they claim they only preach scripture. "Denomination" is not in scripture. So what's the deal spending so much time putting yourself in such a knot over these designations? "Pitch pipe", "microphone", "speaker", "computer", "screen", etc., etc., etc., are not in scripture.
I don't know, I just remember the CofC always saying "just preach the word", "just preach the scriptures", etc., yet I never saw them doing that....just WASTED their time on other minutia and bu**sh**, much of which was completely foreign to scripture and the gospel IMO.
Obsessing over things like this just evidences lack of faith, to me. Lack of faith in just preaching the gospel, casting your bread out on the water, just planting the seed and having faith in God to grow it. BUT of course the CofC doesn't believe God does ANYTHING. Only scriptures somehow do everythiing now. It is so convoluted, twisted, I don't see how it really in the final analysis could make sense to any of them.
Anti churches
Re: Anti churches
'Institutions' referred - at the time of the split - to organized orphans homes, and 'old folks homes' (senior/assisted living) - then mostly occupied by widows.
Non-institutional churches did not believe it was correct to donate money to institutions (orphans homes etc) out of the CONGREGATIONAL COLLECTION money. Instead, they believed that individuals should support such places from individual contributions ('support the widow and orphan in their affliction'). The NT example was directed to individuals, they believed, and therefore it was wrong to 'combine' moneys for that purpose.
The more 'liberal' leaning congregants thought using contribution money as a way to donate regularly (a steady income) to such institutions would be okay.
The same people - the same two groups of people - also split on congregations themselves combining to increase their ability to support, for instance, missionaries. A small congregation couldn't afford to, while two or more could pool their money and jointly support a missionary couple. BUT the same traditional, conservative contingent against 'combining' money (from the weekly contributions) to donate to an 'institution' also opposed 'combing' money from two or more congregations to support a missionary.
I was a little kid during the 1950s split-fest, but I was part of the FOUNDING FAMILIES of a 'new' (and 'liberal', i.e. institutional) CoC, so this was drummed into me for years: The Reasons for the Division.
Also one of my uncles was a 'non-institutional' preacher (that is, a Sound Preacher) and because (I guess) he had married my parents to each other, he felt he had a vested interest, so every time he and his family visited us, we heard all the arguments AGAIN, at home.
The more conservative, traditional 'non-institutional' churches - therefore - tended to be more insular and less active in the community than 'mainstream' CoC congregations, and during the baby boom 50s and 60s, the mainstream churches grew very fast, reaching sizes large enough to withstand some of the forces reducing congregational size (and existence) nowadays. We even had VBS, and a KITCHEN in the BUILDING, which was apparently a really big deal. But at least it was down in the basement, and you couldn't see it or smell it from the auditorium.
Non-institutional churches did not believe it was correct to donate money to institutions (orphans homes etc) out of the CONGREGATIONAL COLLECTION money. Instead, they believed that individuals should support such places from individual contributions ('support the widow and orphan in their affliction'). The NT example was directed to individuals, they believed, and therefore it was wrong to 'combine' moneys for that purpose.
The more 'liberal' leaning congregants thought using contribution money as a way to donate regularly (a steady income) to such institutions would be okay.
The same people - the same two groups of people - also split on congregations themselves combining to increase their ability to support, for instance, missionaries. A small congregation couldn't afford to, while two or more could pool their money and jointly support a missionary couple. BUT the same traditional, conservative contingent against 'combining' money (from the weekly contributions) to donate to an 'institution' also opposed 'combing' money from two or more congregations to support a missionary.
I was a little kid during the 1950s split-fest, but I was part of the FOUNDING FAMILIES of a 'new' (and 'liberal', i.e. institutional) CoC, so this was drummed into me for years: The Reasons for the Division.
Also one of my uncles was a 'non-institutional' preacher (that is, a Sound Preacher) and because (I guess) he had married my parents to each other, he felt he had a vested interest, so every time he and his family visited us, we heard all the arguments AGAIN, at home.
The more conservative, traditional 'non-institutional' churches - therefore - tended to be more insular and less active in the community than 'mainstream' CoC congregations, and during the baby boom 50s and 60s, the mainstream churches grew very fast, reaching sizes large enough to withstand some of the forces reducing congregational size (and existence) nowadays. We even had VBS, and a KITCHEN in the BUILDING, which was apparently a really big deal. But at least it was down in the basement, and you couldn't see it or smell it from the auditorium.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Anti churches
Colleges also qualified as institutions to which the anti churches would not send money.
The missionary society split happened earlier, though.
The missionary society split happened earlier, though.
Moogy
NI COC for over 30 years, but out for over 40 years now
Mostly Methodist for about 30 years.
Left the UMC in 2019 based on their decision to condemn LGBT+ persons and to discipline Pastors who perform same-sex marriages
NI COC for over 30 years, but out for over 40 years now
Mostly Methodist for about 30 years.
Left the UMC in 2019 based on their decision to condemn LGBT+ persons and to discipline Pastors who perform same-sex marriages
Re: Anti churches
i tried to read a debate over the institutional issue but it made me fall asleep.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Re: Anti churches
Kinda like watching an episode of Seinfeld: all about nothing. I suppose the CofCs and all other churches in Christiandom who generously and graciously help the poor and needy will be going to hell. It's beyond stupid.
Re: Anti churches
Seems like a nice hefty sprinkling of OCD to me. The chicken, or the egg?SolaDude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:21 pm This "non-institutional" brand is so weird to me. So, how do they define "institutional"? Does that refer to Catholicism as an "institute"? What the hell is an institute to them? I presume ALL other churches in their minds are "institutional"? That word is not in scripture, so they contradict themselves when they claim they only preach scripture. "Denomination" is not in scripture. So what's the deal spending so much time putting yourself in such a knot over these designations? "Pitch pipe", "microphone", "speaker", "computer", "screen", etc., etc., etc., are not in scripture.
I don't know, I just remember the CofC always saying "just preach the word", "just preach the scriptures", etc., yet I never saw them doing that....just WASTED their time on other minutia and bu**sh**, much of which was completely foreign to scripture and the gospel IMO.
Obsessing over things like this just evidences lack of faith, to me. Lack of faith in just preaching the gospel, casting your bread out on the water, just planting the seed and having faith in God to grow it. BUT of course the CofC doesn't believe God does ANYTHING. Only scriptures somehow do everythiing now. It is so convoluted, twisted, I don't see how it really in the final analysis could make sense to any of them.
And you're right!! Jesus never had a "pitch pipe", nor did he say anything about one. It's a "musical instrument", for goodness sake!! And don't get me started on the internet stuff. Of course, back in my cofc days, there was no such thing. We couldn't surf our phones during a long, boring sermon.
~Stone Cold Ivyrose Austin~
Re: Anti churches
That reminds me of a couple that visited many of the churches in our area, including the CofCs, before coming to our church. I asked the husband what he thought of the CofCs. He told me that they were the only churches where he noticed that about half the congregation was asleep during the sermon and the women were playing with their babies on their laps (a great escape, I'm sure). And yes, he said the sermons were quite boring.
So, what else would you expect? They don't believe in a living God, or that God does anything nowadays, no power of God anywhere. EVERYTHING is only in a book, the Bible. IT is the life. IT is the truth. IT is the way. IT is the living God. And IT is the replacement of the Holy Spirit. God's Spirit is in its fullness in a book. Just like a genie going into a bottle, so God reduced Himself into a book and dwells only there. Your prayer can ONLY be "according" to the book. And any answers to your prayers can ONLY come from that book (you get to look up the answers to your own prayers AND if you can't find them there then there is something WRONG with you). I can't think of a more ridiculous or ludicrous view of God, reducing Him to nothing more than a book of black and red print on white pages.
Re: Anti churches
Some even thought the red letter editions of the book were "unscriptural". Jesus' words while on earth shouldn't be set apart in reda book of black and red print on white pages.
because God wrote the whole book.
~Stone Cold Ivyrose Austin~
Re: Anti churches
Wow that's a good one. God only rated black, Jesus got red, how inequitable. Time for a Bible burning bon fire.
Seriously, though, IMO the CofC never really dealt with the connection between the "I AM" and Jesus as one and he same and I never heard anyone there view Jesus as God incarnate, only as His only begotten Son, never heard them refer to him as "King" or "Messiah". Really, with all their obsession with Paul, I always wondered where exactly they placed Jesus in the whole scheme of things. One CofC minister once told me he saw Jesus as his his source of blood so that when he needed to he could take his cup, dip it in Christ's blood then pour it over himself (figuratively of course) to get those sins washed away that might have built up in him. Grab your cup and start dipping, how convenient.
Re: Anti churches
I am - simultaneous appalled, and not surprised.
My home congregation once had a multi-YEAR discussion (argument) threatening a dreaded SPLIT, over the serious issue of:
May we, or may we not, put cushions on the pews?
come on people! this is clearly a matter of supreme importance worthy of a split!
I joke, slightly -
It actually IS 'worthy of a split', because the ACTUAL point was whether or now some given 'thing' had to be SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED in scripture, or whether some things were okay even though they were never actually MENTIONED.
For instance, AC was authorized because Paul didn't mention it merely because it hadn't been INVENTED yet. But cushions had been invented, so he might have had an OPINION.
This is the same reason - more or less - why CoC's have no musical instruments - they were never officially AUTHORIZED (by Paul).
Ditto the last post though. CoCs worship Paul and the Bible as a written idol, far more than they do the concept of (a) God. The concept of God, I believe, is avoided BECAUSE you can't put a god in a box and control it. Him. Them. Whatever. FAR too dangerous!
My home congregation once had a multi-YEAR discussion (argument) threatening a dreaded SPLIT, over the serious issue of:
May we, or may we not, put cushions on the pews?
come on people! this is clearly a matter of supreme importance worthy of a split!
I joke, slightly -
It actually IS 'worthy of a split', because the ACTUAL point was whether or now some given 'thing' had to be SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED in scripture, or whether some things were okay even though they were never actually MENTIONED.
For instance, AC was authorized because Paul didn't mention it merely because it hadn't been INVENTED yet. But cushions had been invented, so he might have had an OPINION.
This is the same reason - more or less - why CoC's have no musical instruments - they were never officially AUTHORIZED (by Paul).
Ditto the last post though. CoCs worship Paul and the Bible as a written idol, far more than they do the concept of (a) God. The concept of God, I believe, is avoided BECAUSE you can't put a god in a box and control it. Him. Them. Whatever. FAR too dangerous!
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.