Why the focus on just a few people functioning (up front) in our gatherings?

[Yes, and]

14 hours ago, Anne2 said:

So to your statement, denominationalism began way way before that, not to be rude or confronational, but Can you explain some of these terms and how they function in the eastern Church. If you cannot then how can you make a comparison? Maybe you can, I just do not see how without a full understanding

First among equals

First meaning primacy, not authority

Autocephalous self ruled equal to other self ruled?

Hi, again. Your response was extremely helpful. Thank you! And I'll get to responding to your non-rude, non-confrontational question (;-), but I'll go the long way around. If I now understand you correctly, what you are saying (not Vine Abider's summary, which is very helpful in its own right but I think doesn't actually get to your specific point), what you are saying is that you take issue with particular, um, promotions, if you will, of church structures, hierarchies, authorities which you see as based in an incomplete understanding of the structures as practiced up to around AD 300. You take issue with them because you believe they are making comparisons to a type of structure which did not historically exist. Am I warm?

I'm not too good with naming/ID'ing different logical fallacies, and I want to call what you're pointing out as a straw man fallacy—that advocates of certain contemporary structures might be bolstering their arguments using an incomplete or even wrong picture of what they oppose. I don't think "straw man" is quite right, but it's something like that. I think(?)

So here's the deal with me: I'm entering this particular discussion more from the point of view of wanting to understand the participants and, to repeat: my motivation is not to argue anyone into anything, even while still feeling the liberty to ask my questions and point things out and add some info I think might be helpful to further the discussion along. I'm purposely trying to avoid spouting off my own opinions, though admittedly it's difficult to keep some from slipping through!

My wife and I have dear friends whom we got to know more than 20 years ago in the context of a house church. Not long after moving away from our area (sometime around 2003, I think) they made the move into Orthodoxy, and have been ever since, fully content there. And we still love them! The reasons they gave were ones I had seen before, and in certain ways I fully sympathized with them, while knowing I and my wife would not find ourselves following suit. One of the reasons I was told is the visceral reaction they had to the "ridiculousness of denominationalism." The historical argument of the Orthodox church provides a resolution and ameliorative effect to the ongoing sense of disgust one can have for the multitudinous splits and denominations. (Of course the Catholic church offers similar appeal on historic grounds.)

I added this personal info by way of saying that these friends would certainly be in a way better position to explain the terms you brought up than I could! I have not studied Church history in any meaningful depth to be able to do so, but I would also say that (and here we go with an opinion) it would only matter to me for one of two reasons: 1) needing to better understand the worldview of the person with whom I am engaged, (and only if it's actually important that I need to understand those terms) and 2) if I was trying to make an argument for a specific, theologically-based, Church structure to begin with, those terms likely finding their genesis in that sort of argumentation. I won't be trying to, and I never will. Please notice that I am not one who is making comparisons between various historic structures, much less attempting to argue for one being superior to another. If I were to engage in comparisons it would be with ALL structures over and against that which is not a structure.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Yes, and

[Vine Abider]

11 hours ago, Yes, and said:

I'm not too good with naming/ID'ing different logical fallacies, and I want to call what you're pointing out as a straw man fallacy—that advocates of certain contemporary structures might be bolstering their arguments using an incomplete or even wrong picture of what they oppose. I don't think "straw man" is quite right, but it's something like that. I think(?)

 

I appreciate your stance in your last post - trying to understand, without immediately interjecting an opinion.  But this is a safe space, so opinions are welcome in an atmosphere of Christ-oriented fellowship . . . whenever you are ready!

One point - I've read & reread the above paragraph a number of times and I can't quite get a handle on it.  For clarity sake, maybe you could reword and present the idea again.  Thanks!

[Anne2]

12 hours ago, Yes, and said:

Hi, again. Your response was extremely helpful. Thank you! And I'll get to responding to your non-rude, non-confrontational question (;-), but I'll go the long way around. If I now understand you correctly, what you are saying (not Vine Abider's summary, which is very helpful in its own right but I think doesn't actually get to your specific point), what you are saying is that you take issue with particular, um, promotions, if you will, of church structures, hierarchies, authorities which you see as based in an incomplete understanding of the structures as practiced up to around AD 300. You take issue with them because you believe they are making comparisons to a type of structure which did not historically exist. Am I warm?

Yes, yes. Very warm. The fact that these Churches existed, and continue to exist today is a testimony to another system.

 

12 hours ago, Yes, and said:

I'm not too good with naming/ID'ing different logical fallacies, and I want to call what you're pointing out as a straw man fallacy—that advocates of certain contemporary structures might be bolstering their arguments using an incomplete or even wrong picture of what they oppose. I don't think "straw man" is quite right, but it's something like that. I think(?)

Yes, but the terminlogy of straw man, is harsh here IMO. I think it is just done innocently enough. And some are so adverse to anything Catholic, I don't think they even think it a salient issue anyway. As some of the other posts to me indicate in my opinion. Such as meeting house to house etc. LOL. They went to the temple to teach too, and were finally put in prison. It became illegal. Paul testifies that he went all around arresting them with letters from the Jewish rulers to bring them to Jerusalem to be punished. They were being killed. Why Paul's citizenship became an important factor before Caesar. Should Paul have rejected that system? No he used it. Just as Judaism, along with all other religions seeking legal status. So yeah they met in hidden places only.

The "other system" and the differences to their own system, is what I was attempting to understand. Plus the secular Governmental systems these were functioning under was different than todays democracies. Even the reformers needed secular powers in order to maintain their Church leadership. Luther Germany, Calvin French, ( had a man put to death) etc. Various political areas. It is just the way secular governments operated, and the Church functioning under those structures. Now had there been only ONE secular Government over Germany and France that these men had to deal with what would have been? Would they have gotten together to hash things out more uniformly for both to operate under? Or would Calvin have had Luther put to death too? We are so removed from those political norms of structure before modern democracy took hold.

I will no longer be responding to this thread as this going way past my initial questions of concern. Statements "The official state religion" Should be understood as Gaining legal status, from a previously illegal status. As all religions needed that to openly function. So this is going way beyond what my questions were for. 

Blessings to all here.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Anne2

[farouk]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:20 PM, believeinHim said:

I would not go to a Church you are describing. I do not want public attention on myself, In person, At All. 

Worship 'in Spirit and in truth' (John 4) need not involve audible words.

[Vine Abider]

1 hour ago, Anne2 said:

I will no longer be responding to this thread as this going way past my initial questions of concern. Statements "The official state religion" Should be understood as Gaining legal status, from a previously illegal status. As all religions needed that to openly function. So this is going way beyond what my questions were for. 

Blessings to all here.

And multifarious blessings, in His name, to you sister!

I don't know that you and I got to the point of clarity here . . . but if you are thinking things went far enough, then so be it.  It takes effort to understand where others are coming from many times, and I too often reach my limit and just say, "Lord, if there's something here I need to know, I'm confident you'll show me at the right time!"  Shalom

I did want to address one thing in the above paragraph for others reading. From my perspective, "official state religion" goes beyond just moving into a legal status from previously being illegal.  Being backed by the state usually means essentially getting into bed with the state.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia (under Lutheranism; History):  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism

"During the Reformation, Lutheranism became the state religion of numerous states of northern Europe, especially in northern Germany, Scandinavia and the then-Livonian Order. Lutheran clergy became civil servants and the Lutheran churches became part of the state.[1]"

[Anne2]

15 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

And multifarious blessings, in His name, to you sister!

Thanks V.A.

Back at ya.

17 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

I did want to address one thing in the above paragraph for others reading. From my perspective, "official state religion" goes beyond just moving into a legal status from previously being illegal.  Being backed by the state usually means essentially getting into bed with the state.

See now there ya go!!! LOL just kidding. Truly V.A. I will not let the temptation to

respond as I certainly could.....

I just feel bad enough it has gone into all this, for the brothers and sisters in here

that this has become it's own discussion, many could care less to have.

[Yes, and]

21 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

I did want to address one thing in the above paragraph for others reading. From my perspective, "official state religion" goes beyond just moving into a legal status from previously being illegal.  Being backed by the state usually means essentially getting into bed with the state.

And there is definitely a broad spectrum one can see in many places and many times with regard to the relationship between the state (governing powers) and pretty much any religion or belief system, from the state religion being the governing power, to adoption as an official state religion (which I think might be different), through variations of tolerance of some or all religions (variations here, too, in terms of deciding what can and can not be tolerated) to outright attempts to ban or eliminate anything other than a belief in the state (or the dictator of a state) alone.

Anne2, good to know I was warm!

As to my "straw man" paragraph, VA's request for clarity and Anne2's deeming it a little harsh: First, I had no intention of being harsh, esp. since I was saying that I wasn't even sure whether straw man was the right term for what I was observing. Whether innocent or not (and I can easily accept that the argumentation Anne2 was describing was likely innocent enough), Anne2 was saying that the argument she was responding to was being made without a full historical picture, or an inaccurate picture, leading to a false comparison. In other words, proponents of contemporary (i.e., of our time in the here and now) church structures were arguing for it or them in part based on mischaracterizing the early churches, Western and Eastern. (And Anne2 can correct me here as well if I went from warm to cold!) The straw man fallacy does do something like this. I just found a great article at grammarly.com which explains the straw man fallacy. It might be worthwhile to go there and look at it, along with descriptions they have of other logical fallacies.

I never had formal training in logical fallacies, so I don't know the labels, and I don't know all of them, but I do know it takes discipline to understand what someone is saying and discover whether it does fully comport with Truth. And it's even more important to understand the things I tell myself and discover whether these fully comport with Truth! I believe (not know, as that is a whole different ball of wax) that we all, to one degree or another, can easily find ourselves promoting a position riddled with logical fallacies. So, nah. No harshness here. Just mentioning something I saw, for the sake of furthering the discussion.

[Anne2]

4 hours ago, Yes, and said:

And there is definitely a broad spectrum one can see in many places and many times with regard to the relationship between the state (governing powers) and pretty much any religion or belief system, from the state religion being the governing power, to adoption as an official state religion (which I think might be different), through variations of tolerance of some or all religions (variations here, too, in terms of deciding what can and can not be tolerated) to outright attempts to ban or eliminate anything other than a belief in the state (or the dictator of a state) alone.

Anne2, good to know I was warm!

As to my "straw man" paragraph, VA's request for clarity and Anne2's deeming it a little harsh: First, I had no intention of being harsh, esp. since I was saying that I wasn't even sure whether straw man was the right term for what I was observing. Whether innocent or not (and I can easily accept that the argumentation Anne2 was describing was likely innocent enough), Anne2 was saying that the argument she was responding to was being made without a full historical picture, or an inaccurate picture, leading to a false comparison. In other words, proponents of contemporary (i.e., of our time in the here and now) church structures were arguing for it or them in part based on mischaracterizing the early churches, Western and Eastern. (And Anne2 can correct me here as well if I went from warm to cold!) The straw man fallacy does do something like this. I just found a great article at grammarly.com which explains the straw man fallacy. It might be worthwhile to go there and look at it, along with descriptions they have of other logical fallacies.

I never had formal training in logical fallacies, so I don't know the labels, and I don't know all of them, but I do know it takes discipline to understand what someone is saying and discover whether it does fully comport with Truth. And it's even more important to understand the things I tell myself and discover whether these fully comport with Truth! I believe (not know, as that is a whole different ball of wax) that we all, to one degree or another, can easily find ourselves promoting a position riddled with logical fallacies. So, nah. No harshness here. Just mentioning something I saw, for the sake of furthering the discussion.

Never meant to imply you were being harsh. I think your post was quite clear you were not :). All I meant was, I myself would not want to use that term, though it could be an unintended result. But was a legit description yes. Therefore the much more ambiguous "not helpful to anybody"

Edited July 12, 2023 by Anne2

[B Judson]

Quote

some are so adverse to anything Catholic

And some are adverse to catholics for teaching another gospel and a different jesus!

They certainly do embrace extra biblical teachings so for one to be a good catholic, they'll need to throw their Bible in the teach and just take the catholic church's word on what God is saying.

 

[Anne2]

29 minutes ago, B Judson said:

And some are adverse to catholics for teaching another gospel and a different jesus!

They certainly do embrace extra biblical teachings so for one to be a good catholic, they'll need to throw their Bible in the teach and just take the catholic church's word on what God is saying.

 

This is apart from structures of Authority. I do not think this adversity is helpful to interject to "everything" (authority structure) Catholic. Just even mentioning it can and has brought animosity.  Not helpful IMO.