Granted that worry about 'drifting off message' is and was a real worry - I still wonder why outward copying of the mundane practices of the early church was such a SALVATION deal? Especially when the NT really doesn't go into any actual details about how to 'do church' (that the NT does not contain a handy guidebook to church services is a constant topic on coc discussion boards).
Apparently neither Jesus, nor Paul, thought that the mechanics of having a group meeting was worth being specific about. Or did the early church lose track of the manual?
(I still remember - vividly - the years-long debate in my childhood congregation on the subject of the permissibility - or condemnation - of pew cushions.)
example of Church of Christ silliness
Re: example of Church of Christ silliness
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: example of Church of Christ silliness
The shared bread as body and the shared cup as blood does not in my reading to have been the entire meal. To me it was seemingly just that one particular cup and a hunk of bread at some point in the context of a larger meal and event. But considering the notion that it must be an actual full "meal", then how small is too small and how large is too large? Who decides what is an adequate "meal"? Turtle soup all the way down.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: example of Church of Christ silliness
It is odd how a simple request to 'remember me when you get together' turns into such a major topic of detailed analysis, I guess.
It seems to me that the NT clearly expected that groups of Jesus-followers would function as a kind of family, which would naturally eat together, take care of each other like family, support each other like family - all the time (while, of course, awaiting the imminent end of the world, so all things were 'temporary'.
Once the group internally accepts that 'temporary' is going to last generations, I think that's the time when things started to change - also coinciding with the last of the living people who were in it from the start.
It seems to me that the NT clearly expected that groups of Jesus-followers would function as a kind of family, which would naturally eat together, take care of each other like family, support each other like family - all the time (while, of course, awaiting the imminent end of the world, so all things were 'temporary'.
Once the group internally accepts that 'temporary' is going to last generations, I think that's the time when things started to change - also coinciding with the last of the living people who were in it from the start.
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: example of Church of Christ silliness
Yes, there are several separate issues. One is whether or not apostasy is possible. Another is whether or not an intended and imbedded blueprint is meant to be derived from the NT on particular topics. So one person sees change as growth and another as apostasy. The NT letters press the notion to be ready at anytime and maybe that is why they do not take on the task of documenting for the coming thousands of years. IMO, this probably is valid case of "they didn't write about it because everyone knew it" thinking.
To me, the goal of restoration folks like Campbell was restoring the "unity" that the Apostles were trying to maintain. Restoration folks did not have a manual, so they were looking to achieve this by going with a model that was as stripped down as possible so that it would at least fit with in the "not wrong" subset of everyone. To jettison as much as possible anything that included variation in opinion and therefore would lead to division. They seemingly thought that once unity was achieved that everyone would be happy and see the overwhelming benefit. One problem is that not everyone defines "unity" the same way. In any case the variations continued.
To me, the goal of restoration folks like Campbell was restoring the "unity" that the Apostles were trying to maintain. Restoration folks did not have a manual, so they were looking to achieve this by going with a model that was as stripped down as possible so that it would at least fit with in the "not wrong" subset of everyone. To jettison as much as possible anything that included variation in opinion and therefore would lead to division. They seemingly thought that once unity was achieved that everyone would be happy and see the overwhelming benefit. One problem is that not everyone defines "unity" the same way. In any case the variations continued.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: example of Church of Christ silliness
Nice.klp wrote:Turtle soup all the way down.
Re: example of Church of Christ silliness
Isn't that always the case, though? Every time someone decides to try to bring a group together, all that happens is that they end up creating yet another group. Maybe that's 'the right thing', if the ideal is to have SMALL congregations!klp wrote:Yes, there are several separate issues. One is whether or not apostasy is possible. Another is whether or not an intended and imbedded blueprint is meant to be derived from the NT on particular topics. So one person sees change as growth and another as apostasy. The NT letters press the notion to be ready at anytime and maybe that is why they do not take on the task of documenting for the coming thousands of years. IMO, this probably is valid case of "they didn't write about it because everyone knew it" thinking.
To me, the goal of restoration folks like Campbell was restoring the "unity" that the Apostles were trying to maintain. Restoration folks did not have a manual, so they were looking to achieve this by going with a model that was as stripped down as possible so that it would at least fit with in the "not wrong" subset of everyone. To jettison as much as possible anything that included variation in opinion and therefore would lead to division. They seemingly thought that once unity was achieved that everyone would be happy and see the overwhelming benefit. One problem is that not everyone defines "unity" the same way. In any case the variations continued.
Didn't some study or other determine that the ideal size of a group - the size where everyone in it 'knew' everybody else - was somewhere between 30 (for being really close) and 300 (the largest manageable size)?
Has anybody ever done a histogram of congregation sizes, and see if there is a size tip where congregations tend to split? This would only work with the sort of non-organization that the coc has, since a hierarchy type organization makes those decisions externally.
Does the coc have a clustering of congregation sizes, say around 30'ish and again around 300'ish? anybody know?
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.