NationStates Jolt Archive

This is another thread about the differences in religion by your dear friend, Edwardis. Actually, it's about Church government. I want to know your opinions or assumptions (for those of you who have not considered it).

There are four types of Church government:

Episcopalian: the power comes from the top down, examples are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, most Methodists, most Lutherans, most Anglicans and Episcopalians, and pretty much any other church with bishops.

Presbyterian: the power flows up and then back down, presbyterian church government is a Christian republic (not a Christian democracy), the people elect the wise, spiritually mature, knowledgeable, etc. to rule over them, King George called the American Revolution "that Presbyterian Revolt", examples include Presbyterians and most Reformed churches (This is my pick).

Congregational: the power flows up, the church conventions agree on what an individual church has to do to be a part of the convention, but everything else is up to the individual church, examples include most Baptists.

Independent: churches aren't organized beyond alliances to share material or send missionaries, etc.

What kind do you go to? Which would you prefer to go to? Do you not care? If you cared where would you go?

This is another thread about the differences in religion by your dear friend, Edwardis. Actually, it's about Church government. I want to know your opinions or assumptions (for those of you who have not considered it).

There are four types of Church government:

Episcopalian: the power comes from the top down, examples are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, most Methodists, most Lutherans, most Anglicans and Episcopalians, and pretty much any other church with bishops.

Presbyterian: the power flows up and then back down, presbyterian church government is a Christian republic (not a Christian democracy), the people elect the wise, spiritually mature, knowledgeable, etc. to rule over them, King George called the American Revolution "that Presbyterian Revolt", examples include Presbyterians and most Reformed churches (This is my pick).

Congregational: the power flows up, the church conventions agree on what an individual church has to do to be a part of the convention, but everything else is up to the individual church, examples include most Baptists.

Independent: churches aren't organized beyond alliances to share material or send missionaries, etc.

What kind do you go to? Which would you prefer to go to? Do you not care? If you cared where would you go?

I don't go to church anymore (no longer Christian and there aren't any churches for Agnostics :mad:) so I have to say the old one was congregational.............

MEh, don't know, don't care, as long as the Church stays the hell out of the US governement.

Independent. Divide and conquer.....

I don't go to church anymore (no longer Christian and there aren't any churches for Agnostics :mad:) so I have to say the old one was congregational.............

Meh, don't know, don't care, as long as the Church stays the hell out of the US governement.

I was going to go off on a long reply to this topic, but you pretty much summed up everything I was about to say. Literally.

I never went to Church after I got baptized... I form my own opinions on God and The Celestial Heavens... doesn't really fit into any one category, though...

the kind that has been abandoned and its buildings turned over to useful purposes

How depressing. People are voting but no ones posting. :(

I think the presbyterian model works best, because there is a level of accountability which is not had in either the congregational or the independent system. In the congregational, there's not really that much discipline. The convention can throw an individual church out, but they can't discipline members or really enforce rules or laws if leaders of individual churches are disobeying. In independent churches, if the individual church is wrong, there is no way at all to discipline it.

Epsicopalian systems forget that Man is fallibile (that includes the Pope, in my opinion). Therefore, is it better to have one Christian running the show, who may fall, or is it better to have a bunch of Christians holding each other accountalbe running the show? I go with the latter.

And, also, I think that the presbyterian system best reflects the system set up by the Apostles in the book of Acts.

Edit: A bunch of people are posting. :)

2nd Edit: A bunch of people are posting less than kind things. :(

How depressing. People are voting but no ones posting. :(

I think the presbyterian model works best, because there is a level of accountability which is not had in either the congregational or the independent system. In the congregational, there's not really that much discipline. The convention can throw an individual church out, but they can't discipline members or really enforce rules or laws if leaders of individual churches are disobeying. In independent churches, if the individual church is wrong, there is no way at all to discipline it.

Epsicopalian systems forget that Man is fallibile (that includes the Pope, in my opinion). Therefore, is it better to have one Christian running the show, who may fall, or is it better to have a bunch of Christians holding each other accountalbe running the show? I go with the latter.

And, also, I think that the presbyterian system best reflects the system set up by the Apostles in the book of Acts.

Edit: A bunch of people are posting. :)

2nd Edit: A bunch of people are posting less than kind things. :(

Just going on an organizational level, I'd think that congregationalism can get the benefits you're talking about without the possible popularity contest/entrenched hierarchy problems of prebyterianism. A congregationalist system can discipline individuals by requiring that member churches adopt certain standards of discipline. This would require any rules to be universalisable, thus preventing favoritism, which might crop up in a presbyterian or episcopalian system where discipline can be handed down on a case-by-case basis. As for enforcement, they really have as much power as any of the other organizations, at least in the modern world, as churches all legislate only at the consent of their members.

As for independent churches being unaccountable, you forget that any sect that allows independent churches would be working under the assumption that there is no one, or no one mortal at least, that an independent church needs to be accountable to. In addition, basic economics keeps independent churches honest with the competition of other independent churches.

How depressing. People are voting but no ones posting. :(

I think the presbyterian model works best, because there is a level of accountability which is not had in either the congregational or the independent system. In the congregational, there's not really that much discipline. The convention can throw an individual church out, but they can't discipline members or really enforce rules or laws if leaders of individual churches are disobeying. In independent churches, if the individual church is wrong, there is no way at all to discipline it.

Epsicopalian systems forget that Man is fallibile (that includes the Pope, in my opinion). Therefore, is it better to have one Christian running the show, who may fall, or is it better to have a bunch of Christians holding each other accountalbe running the show? I go with the latter.

And, also, I think that the presbyterian system best reflects the system set up by the Apostles in the book of Acts.

Edit: A bunch of people are posting. :)

2nd Edit: A bunch of people are posting less than kind things. :(

Viva Democracy!

Epsicopalian systems forget that Man is fallibile (that includes the Pope, in my opinion).

The pope is infallible. He said so!

Seriously, if anybody ever goes back to actually check up on their facts (I hate the fact that I am apparently the only smart person on this forum) you will notice that the popes have never contradicted each other when it comes to matters regarding the Faith.

In "I hate Catholics" terms, the popes, when they speak infallibly, have yet to be proven fallible. They are only proven fallible when you believe lies. I wonder who made all this up? *Coughs* Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Calvin, Knox, Luther, Joseph Smith. *Coughs*

This would require any rules to be universalisable, thus preventing favoritism, which might crop up in a presbyterian or episcopalian system where discipline can be handed down on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not sure about the episcopalian churches, but I do know that the presbyterian churches (Presbyterian and other) specify what discipline for when and how.

The pope is infallible. He said so!

Seriously, if anybody ever goes back to actually check up on their facts (I hate the fact that I am apparently the only smart person on this forum) you will notice that the popes have never contradicted each other when it comes to matters regarding the Faith.

In "I hate Catholics" terms, the popes, when they speak infallibly, have yet to be proven fallible. They are only proven fallible when you believe lies. I wonder who made all this up?

And you misspelled fallible. Ninny.

That doesn't change the fact that they aren't infallibe. And they've changed their mind. They adopted Augustine's point of view on predestination, but now (though I don't know that they've said differently) their position is quite different. And I don't hate Roman Catholics. In fact, I think they have a lot of things right. But I also think they have a lot of things wrong. Infallibility of the Pope being one.

I'm not sure about the episcopalian churches, but I do know that the presbyterian churches (Presbyterian and other) specify what discipline for when and how.

If it's exact rules for exact situations, then congregationalists can do the exact same thing by requiring member churches to draft the same laws. If it's more of a "every punishment must specify what it's for" then you're still leaving the field open to biased enforcement, something that doesn't happen when people follow laws rather than people.

Congregational: the power flows up, the church conventions agree on what an individual church has to do to be a part of the convention, but everything else is up to the individual church, examples include most Baptists.

that would be us.

It's good to be a member of the convention because we can really make a huge difference in missions etc with millions and millions of dollars pooled together, plus we have "the network" where we can help eachother out quickly, but also our own church aside from basic doctrine can do whatever it wants. ;)

That doesn't change the fact that they aren't infallibe. And they've changed their mind. They adopted Augustine's point of view on predestination, but now (though I don't know that they've said differently) their position is quite different.

Aye, Laddie, but the teachings from the chair of St. Peter have yet to be contradicted, altered, changed, or other have other such inconsistency. Do you know difference between when the popes are speaking Infallibly and when they aren't? My point, which you ignored, is that there is indeed a difference. Care to go up against my big book o' St. Peter's Chair teachings? Find a single point when two popes contradicted each other that involves both teaching from the chair of St. Peter. You'll sooner be able to reverse the flow of the Nile than meet that challenge.

If it's exact rules for exact situations, then congregationalists can do the exact same thing by requiring member churches to draft the same laws. If it's more of a "every punishment must specify what it's for" then you're still leaving the field open to biased enforcement, something that doesn't happen when people follow laws rather than people.

The person did "a", "b" happens. Though the issue is whether the church enforces it. But that's a potential problem with any church government system.

Aye, Laddie, but the teachings from the chair of St. Peter have yet to be contradicted, altered, changed, or other have other such inconsistency. Do you know difference between when the popes are speaking Infallibly and when they aren't? My point, which you ignored, is that there is indeed a difference. Care to go up against my big book o' St. Peter's Chair teachings? Find a single point when two popes contradicted each other that involves both teaching from the chair of St. Peter. You'll sooner be able to reverse the flow of the Nile than meet that challenge.

I don't remember that point being made until now, but okay. And that still doesn't change my mind. But this debate is for another thread and you can begin it if you want to.