Topic: Where is everyone?

[Phidippides]

Easter is coming up in little more than a month...people start posting!

[Phidippides]

I guess this forum is abandoned after all!  At least by Fit... 

[Donald Baker]

This forum is fine.  You know I don't particularly want it to be overwhelmed with hundreds of posts everyday.  But anytime the atheists want to come back and try again, bring it on.

[Phidippides]

Yeah, I know it's fine.  You did once say that it was here for people if they needed it.  It's just that I haven't seen Fit here around recently, and he usually makes "entertaining" comments.  I hope he's alright.

[Donald Baker]

Yes Fit has been AWOL lately.  I guess I could bait him by posting in Just War Theory again. LOL

[Wally]

True, but I agree, hope things okay in his end of the orchard.

[Phidippides]

Easter is coming up in little more than a month...people start posting!

Well, Easter is almost here as today is Holy Thursday and we are entering the Easter Triduum (at least in my church).  I hope everyone is doing well.

[Donald Baker]

I'm glad Spring is here and I plan to enjoy this Easter.

[Phidippides]

I'm glad Spring is here and I plan to enjoy this Easter.

Donnie, how do Baptists celebrate Easter?  Are there special services? 

[Donald Baker]

I'm glad Spring is here and I plan to enjoy this Easter.

Donnie, how do Baptists celebrate Easter?  Are there special services?

Everybody does it differently.  The good thing about being a Baptist is, if you don't like how your church does things, the Baptist church down the street probably does it the way you prefer.  We usually take the Lord's Supper (you have to remember that Protestants don't take communion but every now and then), and have a sermon focusing in on some theological aspect of the cross.  I suppose many churches organize activities for the children and perhaps an Easter meal/potluck type thing.  As I said, it varies from church to church.

[Phidippides]

I am interested in hearing about the administrative side of the Baptists, how it's organized and such.  Perhaps I should start a new thread on this.

[Donald Baker]

Well the Southern Baptists are run by the Southern Baptist Convention which is a loosely structured authoritative body that serves as the theological core of the denomination and parcels out money to convention churches as needed.  Most Southern
Baptist churches belong to the convention in order to get those funds, but it is not required.  Independent churches are still Southern Baptist, but they do not bind themselves to the higher authorities, and of course get no financial help.  We don't have a structured hierarchy like the RCC or the Presbyterians who have a Synod. 

[Phidippides]

Is there something like a bishop at the head of the convention?  If not, who is at the head, and how is he elected to that position? 

Also, what are these "independent" churches?  Are they theologically different from the main SBC or is there some other reason why they're not connected?

[Donald Baker]

Is there something like a bishop at the head of the convention?  If not, who is at the head, and how is he elected to that position? 

Also, what are these "independent" churches?  Are they theologically different from the main SBC or is there some other reason why they're not connected?

We have a President who handles all administrative affairs.  He's a figurehead mostly, but he serves as the "face" of the Southern Baptist community mainly for public relations and such.  The real power in the Southern Baptist denomination is the pastors and their deacons.  Of course this is all by design to get as far away from the Catholic/Anglican bishopric structure as possible.

[Phidippides]

Of course this is all by design to get as far away from the Catholic/Anglican bishopric structure as possible.

That's interesting.  I imagine that there are problems of authority that come up from time to time given the structure.  Even though I think the RCC structure makes things much easier to manage from an objective standpoint, history tells us of all the problems/issues that have come up over time relating to that structure.  So a more "democratic" model seems like it would have its own problems as well.

Anyway, the reason I am interested is because in the class I'm taking the professors had a Methodist (another professor at my school) come in one day, and another day a "minister" from one of the Eastern Orthodox churches came in.  They told us about many things but much of it focused on the jurisdictional aspects of their churches.  Authority structures within religions are obviously an important component of it all, so it's good to hear about how it's all done.

[Donald Baker]

I like the RCC structure the best.  The only part I don't like is the level of authority the Pope and the Cardinals possess.  Administratively it is the best structure, but theologically (primarily the Pope being the Vicar of Christ) carries that role too far for my Protestant taste.  So basically I like the structure, but not the far reaching authority.  Who is the Pope accountable to besides Christ?  Who else can "fire" him if he steps out of line?  (I know the Pope theologically can't step out of line, but from the Protestant point of view, he is still a sinful man like the rest of us so he can be corrupt).  In the Southern Baptist world, if our pastor or our President steps out of line, he is thrown out and replaced.  The deacons retain more actual power than the pastor does ultimately (but they are elected as well so their authority is dependent on the voters who put them in).  Yes there are flaws in this system as a cadre of petty people can hijack a church and put in who they want (and this happens all the time), but at least the people decide rather than an all powerful authority from afar.

[Phidippides]

I was going to say - didn't some sort of popular vote play a role in the whole ELCA/gay marriage issue (or was it just gay ordination?). 

The Catholic belief is that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, and even these seem to have some qualifiers (e.g. gravity of the statement, repetition of a statement, etc.).  So it's not as if there's a belief that the pope can do no wrong.  Obviously the popes are sinners like the rest of us, but that doesn't take away from the office he holds, according to Catholic belief. 

Who can "throw the pope out"?  Funny you ask that question. That is a kind of issue we have discussed in my class I'm taking.  I don't recall the exact the parameters of the discussion, but the issue of conciliarism emerged in the 15th century and so there is some merit to the bishops exerting power in this regard.  However, I am no theologian and don't want you to quote me on this; just know that at least in the past, the issue has come up; it could be revisited in the future, but that would entail a lot of bad things happening first.  The Council of Constance is where this issue played out.

We've also discussed the emergence of the cardinals.  They seem to have been chosen from the titular churches of Rome (some of the earliest ones) and some nearby regions.  They helped to operate the Roman Curia (court) and had a role in jurisdictional matters, which you may know got to be quite extensive in the Middle Ages because of the expanse of the Church.  They also had the ability to elect new popes, which seems like an objectively good thing so as to regularize the system and prevent state interference.

I guess the (objective) problem that I see with more democratic ways has to do with the checks on that kind of system.  For example, with the issue of birth control, the pope (Paul VI) in the 1960s condemned this as morally wrong by way of encyclical, even though there was opposition in the Church by "cardinals, bishops, priests...".  Now, there is only one right answer - it can't be both morally permissible and morally wrong at the same time.  With "democratic" church governance, what would have happened?  Perhaps a split somewhere, with one side in the right and one side in the wrong.  What would have happened to Christ's Truth?  Now, Catholics can say definitively that other Catholics who still espouse the use of birth control are speaking in error even if they sincerely believe that they are right.

[Donald Baker]

That's the deal though.  The reason I like the RCC structure is that it removes the ambiguities of church doctrine (for the most part).  With Protestant denominations like mine, the theology can be in a constant state of flux depending on who gets elected to power.  When I attended the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, the seminary was in a state of transition from outwardly liberal leadership to outwardly conservative.  President Albert Mohler had the faculty to sign onto XIX articles of faith (designed around his five point Calvinism and other traditionally conservative ideals) so that the liberal faculty would either comply/conform or resign to teach elsewhere.  Mohler wanted a homogeneous faculty in conformity to his leadership.  He felt he had the mandate to do this, and he encountered little opposition.  Some feelings were hurt, but it did not detract from his agenda.  He did allow the liberal professors time to find work elsewhere, but that was the only courtesy he gave them.

[Phidippides]

It sounds like the president was acting as "pope" in as much as he had to declare certain theological truths and have everyone sign off on them.  It was a bold move, and more power to him.  I suppose the more liberal professors may have gone off and joined a faculty somewhere else where they were in power.  I guess the difference with the RCC is that if people are in error because of a matter of faith, they will continue to call themselves "Catholic" but remain in error; or they will leave the faith altogether and join a Protestant group or some other group.  In the most egregious cases, they will be excommunicated, but that doesn't happen very often, I don't think.  But they normally won't try to set up an alternative "Catholic" church. 

Anyway, interesting you use the words "he felt he had a mandate to do this", since that is the central issue involved in Catholic circles over papal primacy as well.

[Wally]

He is risen... happy Easter to all.

[Phidippides]

Yes - Happy Easter!

[Fit2BThaied]

I had my third stroke in February, and lost your website. Good to be back.

I hate monarchial denominations. Much prefer congregational.

[Wally]

Good to hear from you; holding good thoughts for your total recovery.

[Donald Baker]

Wow, sorry to hear about that Fit!  I'll keep you in my prayers.

[Phidippides]

I had my third stroke in February, and lost your website. Good to be back.

I hate monarchial denominations. Much prefer congregational.

Glad to hear you're (getting) alright.

[Fit2BThaied]

I'm fully recovered for a month now.

[Donald Baker]

I like this forum idea.  Nice call Phid.

[Phidippides]

Thanks.  The idea came to me when I had a question about another denomination.  Can't remember what the question is, but perhaps it will come back to me.