Comments on: A Paradox of Ecclesiology

By: da5id

da5id — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:41:17 +0000

A similar cell model is also used by many modern megachurches, although they think about it as a church-made-up-of-small-groups model, or the meta-model.

Report comment

By: lmm

lmm — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:02:21 +0000

You can sell without making that your primary goal to the exclusion of all else. If you’re a respected member of the community then that community will support you and you can still live happily.

Report comment

By: Nancy Lebovitz

Nancy Lebovitz — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:11:27 +0000

12 step programs might count as a high-ritual but decentralized organization.

Report comment

By: Hanfeizi

Hanfeizi — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:27:15 +0000

“Liberals and socialists, by contrast, seem to have had much shabbier rittech.”

It’s been very interesting to me, as I’ve studied the history of Freemasonry, to realize that it is essentially the sacral/ritualistic side of Liberalism; it’s basically a quasi-religious order devoted to propagating the ideals of the enlightenment and has been a powerful tone-setter for the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, conspiracy theories aside.

So liberalism’s “rittech” was strong enough to terrify the Catholic Church for a few centuries, and still does in parts of the world (particularly Latin America).

Report comment

By: MugaSofer

MugaSofer — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:04:31 +0000

Huh. This might actually work.

Picture an app that lets you subscribe to a particular congregation’s membership list, and whatever the equivalent of church is.

Members can request a premium Priest-membership from their Bishop, to split off their own congregation as numbers rise.

Bishops can approve/disapprove of any other Bishop, anyone with enough downvote/upvote ratio is declared a heretic and their account suspended.

(Historically, I would also suggest an “unbaptized” level of membership, for those who are interested but not committed; but have members-only areas.)

Report comment

By: Mai La Dreapta

Mai La Dreapta — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:27:52 +0000

Again, this is what actually happened. Ordaining a new bishop requires at least three existing bishops in order to be considered valid, and the custom going back to whenever was for all of the bishops in the region to attend a new ordination. This avoided the problem of fringe elements getting in and then requiring lots of effort to get out of the network. And where the big controversies occurred (most especially the Donatist schism and the Arian controversy, which was already underway when Constantine converted), the only reason they became “big” is because there was a lot of support for both sides.

Report comment

By: Kaminiwa

Kaminiwa — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 02:34:44 +0000

That seems to be the usual failure of “Invite Only” systems in the modern world too: Eventually someone invites a bad apple, and then that bad apple opens the door to a ton of other bad apples.

Report comment

By: Doug S.

Doug S. — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:59:10 +0000

And then there’s what Henry VIII of England did…

Report comment

By: Doug S.

Doug S. — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:08:19 +0000

“A heretic is someone who shares almost all of your beliefs. Kill him.” – Steve Jackson

Report comment

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:18:04 +0000

As I recall, ordaining a bishop requires three bishops. That tends to limit the problem you describe, though it means that when schisms do occur, there will be significant support on both sides.

Report comment