Thanks for the responses. Let me see if I can address them in one post instead of several:
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
I don't think anyone is undermining what can be done online, but to present it as being the ideal is unmerited.
I've never presented online fellowship as "ideal" for everyone or that people who choose to meet f2f should abandon such practices. There are certainly issues that would benefit the body in being addressed pertaining to the artificiality of those meetings, but that is a separate discussion. The original question I proposed was: What is the purpose of f2f Church gatherings? and then elaborated with "What is the purpose of f2f Church gatherings that cannot be done online, where what can't be done online would be net loss to the non-participant?
I am not asking this question to undermine f2f fellowship. But there has been throughout the internet age a concerted effort by Evangelicals (most especially their leaders) to deny the legitimacy of those who do not participate in f2f gatherings but instead pursue the "same exact activities" online. This is typically done the very same way you initially responded. Hebrews 10:25. Then a knee-jerk overreaction that my proposition is to eradicate f2f meetings altogether. And then (as I will address further down) an attempt to slap the label of "mentally ill" or "abnormal" onto anyone who expresses any variance in the status quo (even though there is a much, much longer historical record of solitary expressions than there is for modern evangelicalism).
It was not until COVID that Church leaders were suddenly forced to accept at-distance fellowship, and I would argue this acceptance has more to do with preserving their livelihoods than it does with acknowledgement of past error on their part.
So I am in no way presenting non f2f meeting/interaction as ideal for everyone. What I've been trying to say is it is ideal for me. Not because I am ackward or mentally ill or riddled with sin or want to rebel against elder submission. It is a calling (as Jesus and Paul both pointed out) and those who are called to it should accept it if they are able. Unfortunately, this means being shunned by those in the f2f Meetings as well.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
It may be that virtual contact is better for a minority, those with agrophobia, enochlophobia (fear of crowds) and other medical conditions .
Solitary confinement is classified by psychologists as a type of torture, babies literally die if they are not held and carressed and that need stays with all normal humans their whole lives. This are not religious dogma but medical facts.
As stated above, this is right out of the playbook - a typical knee-jerk response. If someone expresses a calling to the contemplative life, they are immediately branded a heretic, and if that doesn't work then, why, they must be mentally ill, they are a minority in the Church and can be avoided and abandoned.
You realize that much of your Church history is derived from men just such as this: hermits and anchorites and monks? In fact, if it were not for the monk-scribe of the middle ages, you would not have a Bible to quote at all!
I repeat, to be called to solitude is not a mental illness. It is a call from God. Just because it is different than what you routinely see, or it rubs against the ways in which the crowds move does not automatically negate its authenticity.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
And we are all learning in this COVID era virtual meetings are valuable during medical emergencies.
I really think you might be missing my point completely. I've never said virtual meetings should in any way replace in person meetings. What I first asked was: what is the purpose of f2f meetings and what occurs during those meetings that cannot be done online? I'm searching here to better understand why it is the evangelical community is so insistent that you cannot be a Christian "in good standing" if you do not participate in lock step with them (i.e. f2f meetings). The example I already used of the pastor that told me I had to meet with the Church on Sundays to be a part of the Church. Just coming together on Wednesday wasn't good enough.
This whole idea is very confusing to me since I know (at least what I've experienced) that what is done at f2f meetings can actually be done online (and more effectively). For me. There is also a long history of what I'm describing of professing Christians not participating in the formal meetings. Anchorites. Hermits. They were rarely if ever seen at Mass. It is only the twenty and really the 21st century evangelical Christian organization(s) who have issue with these alternate callings. Maybe it is remnant paranoia from the reformation creeping in - throwing the baby out with the bath water.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
While negative social/religious experiences and psycological conditions may well play a part in influencing individual preferences it is simply untue to suggest that humans as a whole thrive in physical isolation. We (humans) are social beings and we function best when we have a degree of physical contact.
I never said that in this discussion. You are jumping to a conclusion. I've never once said "humans as a whole" thrive in physical isolation. My exact words were, "I have always thrived in physical isolation." If I were to say everyone would do better isolated I would be just as guilty of gross stereo-typing as the modern Churches are for doing so with those called to solitude. We humans are, indeed, social beings. But the level of social activity and the variety that social activity takes is wide and diverse. The thought of attending a Bible Study where people are hugging and carrying on with stories and sharing about their lives - makes my skin crawl. But, I also know people who revile at the thought of spending just a few nights deep in the woods, let alone weeks at a time. Diversity. This is what the modern Church is abnegating in their insistence that everyone should be called the same way and should act the same way.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
Virtual meetings may well be beneficial as a complementary way of maintaining contact with those we love or reaching out to strangers who are far from us , but from there to suggest it is God's will we all only see each other only virtually all the time or that those that highlight the the value of physically gathering are wrong, is an extreme point of view to say the least.
Wait. Why? Why the knee-jerk reaction to label these other types of fellowship, interaction as "complementary" as if inferior to the status quo? So, lets dig into this a little. Why are you stating that virtual meetings are complementary? What is it exactly that f2f meetings have that virtual meetings do not have? Does it come down to the physical handshake and hug? I'm not attacking, I'm trying to understand this. Overcomer stated something similar, that the f2f meeting had something, that virtual meetings were missing something. I'm trying to pinpoint what that "something" is.
Again. I never "suggest[ed] it is God's will we (as in everyone) all only see each other only virtually all the time." Never said it. What I said was, "it is God's will that I participate in the body of Christ in a different way than what is common in our era." Likewise, I did not state "those who highlight the value of physical gatherings are wrong." Never said it. What I said was, "those who find value in physical gatherings are quick to assert that I am wrong for not finding value in physical gatherings."
Still not attacking. My purpose with this thread was to elicit a dialogue about the purposes of f2f Church gatherings because those who participate in those f2f meetings assert that I am missing "something" by not participating in those f2f meetings. Yet, all that so far as been presented as "what exactly I'm missing" is vague ideas of being "re-filled" and the typical proof texting to exert peer pressure to comply.
I would like to dialogue about this topic. Explore it in some depth. Not brow-beat each other with verses from the go-to heretic fighter's manual.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
Nobody is suggesting that physical gathering undermines the value of moments of solitude, especially for personal prayer and meditation. Nobody is suggesting that virtual is "all bad" but to use your personal experiences in the real world to suggest that the physical meeting of people that love and care for each other is a negative "useless" endeavor that should be frowned upon and ideally eliminated from Christian life is unbalanced and more importantly scripturally untenable.
You are quick to keep doing this. "moments of solitude." These are your words, not mine. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not referring to the evangelical idea of "devotionals" or sitting quietly in a park for 15 minutes during your lunch break. I'm referring to an entirely distinct theology (desert theology), contemplative expression of the Christian faith. It looks nothing like typical, denominational evangelicalism.
To address your point, actually, many evangelical leaders were suggesting that virtual was "all bad" before COVID. They took the same stance as you did here. Maybe online fellowship is complementary. But it cannot replace altogether the f2f meetings. But, this is the core of what I'm trying to uncover. Why do the leaders say this? I'm trying to get to the list of items - what am I missing from the universal Christian experience by not participating in f2f meetings? What does it have that online doesn't have, specifically?
AGAIN. I never said, "that the physical meeting of people that love and care for each other is a negative "useless" endeavor that should be frowned upon and ideally eliminated from Christian life is unbalanced and more importantly scripturally untenable." Nope. Never once said anything remotely like this. I said the exact opposite. I said the f2f meeting that others find beneficial "I" find no benefit from it. Additionally, I would say, no one in the meeting finds benefit in having me there either, simply because I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable in such a situation. Now, what you are accusing me of saying here is actually what the F2F meeting people say of solitaries. They claim we are trying to isolate ourselves. That we hate people. (Like you said above) we are mentally unstable. They say such practices (such as monasticism and hermitism) should be eliminated from Christian life. It is unbalanced and has no scriptural support.
Lets try a hypothetical: A person who has been attending the Kingdom Hall for a few years confides in you one day, stating, "you know, I really feel a calling to solitude. I can't really describe why or what it is exactly. It's just this almost overwhelming conviction that I don't belong here, that I'm supposed to..you know, I really find a great deal of peace and refreshment and purpose....I'm drawn to God in such an intimate way when I'm alone with Him, when I'm by myself. I think I'm going to become a hermit. What do you think I should do?"
What would your advice be for this person?
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there among them"
"For I long to see you so that I may share with you some spiritual gift, to strengthen and establish you"
"He who isolates himself pursues selfish desires; he rebels against all sound judgment."
I agree with the first reference. Where two or more are gathered. I would argue that I am gathered with you right now as I'm writing this, and again as you read it. This dialogue between us is fellowship at its core, yet it is simply stretched out beyond conventional time (or across) time. Not only do you and I benefit and are built up from it, but it is an online forum and there is a record of this dialogue for years to come. It is quite possible this conversation has little to do with either of us, but it has to do with someone who isn't even a believer yet. Maybe someone will read these posts ten years from now and something about our discussion will prod them into God's grace. In light of this possibility, they, too, are joined together in our gathering and so are all who read these posts and remain silent. There is a whole host of people who are gathered in fellowship around our discussion. That is true, effective fellowship.
Next reference, Paul referring to his anticipation of visiting his disciples. And this one of my points of contention with the modern Church. During Paul's day there were primarily two modes of communication. Writing and f2f meeting. This is not the case today. There are primarily still two modes, but a vast array of distribution methods of those two modes. We have the ability to disseminate writing instantly (blogs, social media, forums, etc) on a global scale. We can record f2f communication (lectures, discussions, etc) and distribute those globally either immediately (livestreaming) or again and again to whoever desires to see it (on demand). The same is true for audio, which is now much, much more versatile and flexible than broadcast radio ever was. One sermon now, instead of impacting 50 people at the f2f meeting can now impact 50 million regardless of their geographic location, social or economic status. This is just the tip of the iceberg on how technology has transformed the ways in which people communicate, share, and relate to one another. I mean, who ever really imagined 50 years ago that phone calls would no longer be audio alone, but would be video live streaming on handheld supercomputers? So, being able to see people at a distance is not only just possible it is common place. The sharing of "some spiritual gift" (though we really can't say what exactly he was referring to here) is certainly possible, unless you are talking about speaking in tongue or being slain in the spirit or holy laughter (because, if you are, we have to start another thread). Strengthening people and establishing them in the faith can easily be done via skype. It's simply no different. You, personally, may not prefer it. You may not be used to it. But I guarantee you the next generation to be born will have no problems living completely in an online virtual space for most of their lives. In fact, they probably won't have a choice.
Now, your last quoted reference always makes me laugh a little. Just goes to show that most people never take the time to actually discern what the Bible says. They just pull out the talking points of whoever they are following.
But, lets dig in: "He who isolates himself pursues selfish desires; he rebels against all sound judgment" (Proverbs 18:1).
The key word in this verse, of course, is "isolates." If this word was not in the verse it would never be brought up. And believe me, it is brought up alot. But, just a cursory check shows this is the ONLY verse in the Bible that uses the word "isolates."
The word in the LXX is Chorizo and means "distinguish, divide, sever, separate." The Hebrew is Parad and means "dividing in parts, the whole becoming different sets or groups." If you look at a variety of translations you'll see the context is not so cut and dried, especially since it is a Proverbs, so it has no extended context. LES has "to separate," the NKJV, CSB, and ESV have "isolates," but the LEB, NRSV, NIV have "selfish, self-indulgent." So this verse could just as easily read, "HE who is selfish pursues selfish desires."
But lets take it as "isolates." The one who isolates himself pursues selfish desires. But solitaries do not isolate themselves. If I were isolating myself I would not be writing this right now. I would not spend time in prayer. I would not spend time interacting with other Christians through books and videos. I would not correspond with people via email. Even still, if I were to completely cut myself off from the world (as many hermits did throughout Church history) I still would not be doing it because I hate people. I would not be doing it because I thought everyone was lost and I was the only one to be saved. Often times solitaries are not clearly aware of why they are called to the desert. John the Baptist didn't discuss it. Jesus never really talked about why he went out on his own. Some are compelled.
Some people, even non-believers, isolate themselves because they are energized and recharged by being alone for long periods of time. They're called introverts. And the modern Church makes absolutely zero room for them at the table. Introverts, by and large, are required to fake social ques in order to fit in and be accepted in Evangelicalism. Otherwise they are shunned as being anti-social, or people haters or just weird.
The Catholic Church does, though. They, in fact, embrace the call of the solitary.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
Jesus and Paul were advocating the superiority of singleness not denouncing Christians coming together in the same physical location for fellowship and worship.
While both Jesus and Paul were by all accounts unmarried men they did not isolate themselves from human contact indeed both spent enormous amounts of time in physical proximity of others. Although both are described as seeking solitude for periods of prayer and meditation on occasion, that seemed to be their way of reinvigorating themselves to continue their ministering rather than their way of life. In short while both were single men and both spoke of the superority of such a way of life for those able to live happily so, neither were hermits.
It is true that neither Paul nor Jesus were solitaries. But Jesus made it clear that there are some who are called to a different state in life, and as Paul elaborated, it is a state in full devotion to God rather than one distracted and divided between God and human relationships. Paul was pretty straightforward in that marriage was second best to a celibate life in full devotion. Modern Churches are, indeed, cookie cutter in their approach. They want parishioners to be married, to have children, as this is stabilizing for both attendance and revenues. But neither Paul nor Jesus forbid marriage. It is not a sin. But if one is called to a celibate life (and the majority if not all the solitaries throughout history were celibates) and they can accept it, Jesus said they should.
The problem is the evangelical Church today does not accept that there are some who are called to this vocation.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:54 pm
It would be a misapplication of the verses to use them as arguments against Christian meetings.
Yes that was a typo (duly corrected see edit) I meant to say "Many Christians live alone and suffer from feelings of isolation and loneliness". It might be more accurate to say "some" rather than many.
Never did this. Those verses were not used to illustrate how f2f Church meetings are somehow wrong. It was to illustrate how there are callings beyond the status quo. There are expressions of Christianity that are just as valid as the traditional f2f Church meeting expression. The f2f Church has a problem with this concept. They want to cut off of the body all who claim they are called to an expression of Christianity that looks different in any way.
Oh, and I wasn't confused about the typo. I actually didn't even see it. I was confused that there are people who live alone and suffer feelings of isolation and loneliness. It is bizarre to me. Yet, I've known people who would rather remain in an abusive relationship than separate simply because they're terrified of being alone. That just seems unhealthy. But each to their own, I suppose.
............
Through this all, I'm trying to discover the motivations for why the f2f Church meeting is so important. I pointed out how 1. the claims the f2f Church meetings make really don't hold up all that often (building up, comforting, etc) and 2. everything that I've seen occurring at the f2f Church meetings can be done just as effectively online (maybe more so).
It really just seems like evangelical Church leadership is being dishonest about their true motivations. They claim it is sacrilegious to follow the examples of the early hermits and monks, but they can't really point to reasons why. Much of our theology is founded upon the work those "heretics" accomplished while in the desert.
Personally, I think it boils down to the god Mammon. If the professional clergy (or the governing body for that matter) allowed such expressions legitimacy, I think they fear the loss of control over their acolytes and their revenues would go down. I mean, look what COVID has done to many churches? Several in my area have closed completely.
But, the Catholic Church does a really good job of making a place for solitaries. It's too bad they have issues with idolatrous doctrine, or I would jump the protestant ship altogether. There are protestant monasteries (only a few), but there are no eremitic ones.
I guess its a divide that will never really be resolved.