Not by Might, Nor by Power, Nor by the Spirit, Says the Lord, but by Geographical Location and Proximity

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/05/spectral-koinonia.html?m=1 

I don't know what new thing Hodge has in mind. The electronic church isn't new. Jews and Christians have practiced physical fellowship for millennia. Christians have continued to worship during time of plague for centuries. Perhaps Hodge means his own understanding of the church. 

This seems rather confused. Electronic church is new, as Steve admits here. It hasn’t been practiced for millennia as when we did not have it. Even if the electronic church was as old as the internet, it would still be considered new. Likewise, this comment, and others, tell me that Steve doesn’t really have a grasp on what I am arguing because a widespread phenomenon of having live church meetings that are being held through apps like Jitsi or Zoom are new even for the age of the internet. Again, if Steve thinks I am talking about someone who is only listening to sermons online and making private prayers, that is not assembling for corporate worship, and therefore, not for that which I am arguing.

i)                    That, of course, is the stock excuse to suspend public worship. During times when it's deemed to be riskier to meet together than to avoid meeting together. 

Because it’s a good one. If you still meet in a building when there is a bomb threat, that's up to you, but wisdom would say to suspend it. However, we are not suspending public worship unless Steve is conflating "public worship" with "being in the same geographical location." We are all still performing public worship services online.

ii) One problem, as I recently noted, is that it's a matter of degree:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/04/if-it-saves-just-one-life.html

How risky is too risky? Does Hodge think there should be a moratorium on public worship until we develop a vaccine? 

Sure it is. I never said otherwise. I’m not the one to decide what is too risky as I am not an expert on the matter. That is why deferring to medical researchers who track and study plagues and have been assigned to this one, i.e., experts, is crucial.

As I noted in another post, the ancient church didn't practice social distancing:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/praying-with-sick.html

Of course it didn’t. It couldn’t refrain from meeting in the same physical geographical area and be obedient. There was no other way to meet or minister to the sick. Likewise, they likely didn’t take more precautions with the sick because they had no concept that illness was spread through viruses and bacteria. This is simply an “is-ought” fallacy. Because people in church history didn’t do X, we ought not to do X. According to what? The authority of a tradition that had no alternative means available to them. If there is only one means to be obedient, then there is no choice to between options. There are no options. Were they choosing between physical contact and the internet? Of course not. So this isn’t even a good argument from tradition as it isn’t parallel to the church today and what choices it needs to make. These choices have never been made before because these options have never existed before.

So is it essential or just ideal?

Ideal. That’s been my entire argument. If it was essential then there could be no exceptions even in the first century. If being in the same physical geographical location with one another is essential to perform the ministries and receive from the ministry what needs to be performed and received, i.e., the reasons why the assembly meets, then to even have one exception to these ministries is to be disobedient. The very reason there are exceptions is because physicality is not an essential component.

i) To begin with, it's revealing that Hodge has no categories for what I describe, so he substitutes categories like "sacramental" and "mystical" that I don't use. Classic examples of sacramentalism would be baptismal regeneration, penance, and reception of the real body and blood of Christ in the eucharist.  But I haven't used those examples  because I don't subscribe to that kind of sacramentalism.

ii) Another kind of supernaturalism would be something like xenoglossy, miraculous healing, prophetic insight and foresight. But I haven't used those examples.

iii) Take more mundane examples like answer to prayer. An answer to prayer is supernatural in the sense that it's something that wouldn't naturally happen. God must grant the petition. It may not be supernatural in a spectacular or sensational sense, but it's not just something that was going happened whether or not the prayer request was made. Does Hodge think answered prayer is "mystical"? 

Another example is sanctification. That's supernatural, but it can use the means of grace. Ordinary public worship can facilitate sanctification. 

This is exactly what a sacrament is. The idea that some physical thing is being used as a means of grace, has a greater power in getting prayers answered, etc. Perhaps, Steve’s category of what makes a sacrament is too narrow, as it has not allowed him to see that he is arguing sacramentally.

Furthermore, his last statement again begs the question. I have been arguing that what we are doing is public worship, but Steve keeps inserting the idea that public, corporate worship of the assembly necessarily entails our meeting in the same geographical location. His argument demands it. Yet, this is the very idea I refuted in the original post.

It looks like the electronic church. 

No, it doesn’t. See, we can all make assertions. LOL. One would have to be disembodied in order to have disembodied worship, like the saints in heaven.

He keeps missing the point of coming together for physical fellowship. 

For some reason, Hodge is hung up on "geography". The primary principle is physical assembly. A common space is simply a necessary instrumental means to that end. It could be inside or outside, although weather can be a practical factor. 

First, I don’t think Steve realizes that he is hung up on geography. His entire argument demands it. My point is that geography is irrelevant if one can be in unity through the Word and Spirit as they are assembled whether geographically or online. But Steve seems to be arguing that something special happens through the geographical proximity of Christians to one another, along with the other elements I’m sure. This is what he cannot prove biblically so it’s a matter of just assuming it.

But what of the original assemblies under Moses when you have (possibly) a couple million people involved? There are no mics so the elders of the clans likely heard Moses, Aaron, the priests, and then taught what was heard to the rest of the tribes. So they are not hearing the Word directly from the mouths of those who speak it. They are not participating directly in the sacrifices. Is the blood being sprinkled on everyone in the congregation or everyone by proxy?

My only point here is that those in the rest of the congregation are not geographically near enough to technically be in the assembly. Yet, they are a part of it.

Likewise, what about meeting in an outdoor location like a Park. Everyone can hear the ministers, thanks to those non-normative electronic microphones we all use now, so that all are receiving the same Word in unity, all are speaking the same truth to one another in liturgy, all singing the same songs, all praying together, etc. Yet, is the guy who is a quarter of a mile away at the edge of the crowd from the guy on the opposite side and aren’t in a close geographical proximity in unity and fellowship in the assembly? I would say so because it is the same Word heard and spoken in preaching, confession, prayer, and song that binds them. They partake of the same communion service together. But if this qualifies, why not two people a mile away doing the same thing? Why not 10 miles? 500? 1000? Steve acts as though geography is not the issue when it is the only issue his position could argue for unless he wants to say that two people who don’t physically touch one another aren’t in the same assembly.

i)                    There's a sense in which heaven (i.e. the intermediate state) is deficient. It's a temporary stopgap until the resurrection of the just. 

Agreed when it comes to the saints, not Jesus. Jesus isn’t in an intermediate state. He has His eternal body and yet exclusively fellowships with His people through the non-physical means of the Spirit.

However, I am arguing for deficiency in being able to obey the necessary requirements for something to be defined as an obedient assembly. If physical touch is necessary for fellowship then spirits can’t fellowship. If physical touch is necessary to worship God in obedience to the assembly, then spirits can’t do that. Neither the saints nor Jesus are unified with one another in the assembly either in heaven or on earth.

ii)                  However, the comparison is off because, to judge by visions of heaven in Scripture, it's like a collective dream where the saints have simulated bodies and interact with each other as if they were embodied agents. 

You mean like we do online? A spirit has a projection of his former bodily form. That is true. So does speaking to one another through cameras.

ii) Hodge trivialized the role of touch, but consider how much physical touch figured in the public ministry of Christ. Consider the role of touch in ecclesiastical prayer for healing: 

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/praying-with-sick.html

Touching was a common way of transferring blessing in the first century. Steve can argue that this is normative. I’m not sure I would agree. Do we confer blessing now through physical touch when we do meet in the same location? Sometimes, but I doubt many think that a blessing does not transfer without physical touch. It certainly isn’t necessary for Christ or the early church to touch people in order to do it since Christ and the apostles don’t always do it to heal people.

iii)                Embodied experience, embodied interaction are part of Christian worship, not in the first place because we're Christian, but because we're human, and so that's something we bring to the proceeding, whether inside church or outside church. That's just how God made us. It conditions our humanity. 

1.      If it is an essential part then we are back to the saints in heaven incapable of partaking in worship. Steve’s idea of what is “embodied” keeps slipping back and forth between definitions. On the one hand, it cannot be through the internet because that does not allow our physical bodies to be near each other, and on the other it can be done by spirits in heaven because they have projected images of their bodies that interact with one another, although not through physical touch.

2.      We are embodied. Everything we do as physical creatures on earth is embodied, even when we are talking through cameras and microphones. Does Steve think that using a microphone is disembodied because it is now not a direct interaction between my vocal chords and the ear drums of the congregation? The microphone and camera are mediums of our physical, embodied interactions, not a disembodied replacement of them.

iv)                Physical interaction can mean many things. Eye-contact. Speaking face-to-face. Singing alongside each other. Praying in unison. 

This is where I think that Steve is not tracking with my argument. We are making eye-contact through the camera. We are speaking face-to-face through the camera and mic. We are singing with one another in unity. We are praying as one through the app. Has Steve actually participated in this kind of service before? Or is again arguing for geographical proximity as a means of grace?

v) By Hodge/s logic, a married couple might as well conduct their marital life entirely through cellphones. They could raise their kids entirely through cellphones. No physical interaction required. Just the electronic voice and the image on the screen. Have domestic robots provide for the physical necessities while we communicate with our kids through cellphones. 

Here is where Steve’s argument goes off the rails. Is he actually arguing that the relationship between husband and wife, that is of a physical nature, is the same as what makes up the essential components of how the church should interact? Pagan worship is pretty physical. You could probably make this analogy in that setting, but Christian worship is in truth and Spirit and those who worship the Father do so through those means, not through the physical location (that’s Christ’s whole point to the woman at the well). Our fellowship is in the One Spirit given to us, not touch. Our communion with Christ is through the Spirit, not through physical touch. The nature of the spousal relationship can only occur physically. The two become one flesh, not one spirit. Without the physical interaction, the marriage relationship is not made nor sustained, but is a practical divorce and disobedient. Such is not true of the assemblies of God so this is simply a false analogy.

That just begs the question. Were conjugal relations never normative but just a temporary stopgap until we developed artificial insemination? 

No, because the nature of the relationship is physical. That is not true of the Christian’s relationship with other Christians in the assembly.

Nowadays you don't need to hug your kids or hold their hands or take them in your arms or give them piggyback rides if you have domestic robots can do that. You don't need to read to your kids. A computer can do that. 

I’ve already argued for the basic necessity of humans to touch one another and be physically present with one another. Parents give this health benefit to their children in their show of physical affection. Friends can. Family can. Christians can. That is ideal. Is it necessary for Christians to give it to one another rather than family and other friends? No, but it is ideal that they participate in it. I’ve never said otherwise. However, should men and women who aren’t married be physical with one another? I personally don’t think that should be the norm, nor was it for most of church history. Does that mean that men aren’t fellowshipping with the women and that they are of two different assemblies? Of course not.

By Hodge's logic, there was never any intrinsic necessity in Christians meeting together for worship. Why bother with house-churches or the agape feast? 

Why bother? Because there is an intrinsic necessity for Christians to meet together in houses or catacombs or buildings or outdoor settings, etc. because there is no other way to assemble and meet the ministry requirements, i.e., the very reasons for which those meetings take place (the feast is done away quite early so is Steve arguing that we haven’t been in the church for a couple thousand years because we no longer meet in what was a normative way for the early church?).

Me: “Now that isn’t the case. If by “normative,” Steve means “an essential component of the command” then my entire post refuted that idea. If it was normative then none of these things could be done by proxy, and they were even in the early church.” 

Steve: That's a non sequitur.

No, it isn’t. If an essential component, i.e., a component of X that must be present in order for X to be performed, then X is not performed when that  necessary component is absent. Ergo, to obediently perform X without that component of being physically present with other believers in the same geographical location is to show that such is not an essential component Steve should have read my original post more carefully.

The fact that some things can be done by proxy doesn't mean that's a permanent alternative. Is bottle-feeding preferable to breastfeeding? Is it preferable for able-bodied teenagers to use electric skateboards instead of using their own muscles to walk? 

I’ve maintained the whole time that this isn’t permanent or preferable/ideal. However, what is preferable depends upon the situation. It’s preferable to breastfeed all things being equal. However, if the mother has a debilitating disease that can be transferred through breastfeeding, it is preferable in that situation to use formula. Again, all things being equal, it is preferable that the guy use his legs for exercise, but if late for work or he is feeling weak, the skateboard is preferable. No one wants these alternate situations to last, however, so it is the situation that is not ideal that makes the alternative preferable. Once the situation changes back to normal, the means with more benefit becomes preferable.

Why did God institute public worship in the first place unless he reserves certain kinds of blessings for public worship?

I’ve already answered this in the original post I wrote. Notice, again, that Steve conflates public worship with being physically in the same geographical location. The entire argument is over whether the blessings through the ministries of the assembly are still being delivered and received by the church because it is publically assembling online. My post argued that they are because the medium of the internet allows for all of these ministries to still thrive.

This reminds me of Televangelists who instruct viewers to put their hands on the TV screen to receive healing.

And Jesus resurrecting reminds atheists of a cosmic zombie. Everything can be reduced to an absurd description, which is why mockery isn’t an argument. The same goes for calling these things “spectral,” as that has connotations of quackery. I could just as easily say that Steve’s touching ministry reminds me of a Benny Hinn Crusade or Todd Bentley kicking people in the congregation in the face. But on another note, isn’t Jesus’ ministry spectral? In fact, isn’t it the only ministry He has to us right now? Isn’t it the only fellowship He has had with His church for the past two thousand years? Though embodied, He communes and transfers every blessing that exists through the Spirit. No physical touch needed, that is, unless one wants to argue for Jesus being physically present in the Mass.

Preaching has always been physical. I think what he means is that the message is abstract. 

I mean the actual message that goes out is not through physical touch. Obviously, preaching, even through the internet or a microphone, is physical. It just doesn’t require being physically in the same geographical location.

But Hodge doesn't seem to think there's any spiritual benefit to physical fellowship. Certainly nothing to outweigh the alleged physical risk. 

Steve himself argued that the benefit of touch wasn’t spiritual, but a basic human need. I’ve argued against the sacramental idea of physical proximity.

i)                    But Hodge is very selective and one-sided about the experts he listens to. He's totally sold on the social distancing model. He shrugs off the herd immunity model. Or discriminating quarantine based on individuals who test positive. 

The experts are sold on the model. If they were sold on the herd immunity model, I’d do that. I should also be clear that by "experts" I do not mean politicians in government or general practitioners or doctors in other fields or statisticians, etc. I mean people who follow pandemics, chase them and track them, medical researchers, who are now assigned to studying and given all they need to study, this particular pandemic. They seem to be suggesting that herd immunity isn’t ideal because many infected may not be obtaining immunity. In any case, wisdom is an assumption that the opinions of the novice and the experienced are not to be trusted equally.