Kingdom Come?
You ever get a single thought that pops into your head during the most mundane task, and suddenly you're downloading an entire theme seemingly out of no where? This morning, while coiffing for church, the idea of a king's court popped into my head...
followed by a barrage of thoughts that suggested today's present way of gathering for church emerged directly out of the king and court culture of Christendom, and beyond.
Hope you can track with me here...
Picture today's typical evangelical church. There's a head pastor, surrounded by a team of associates, surrounded by a team of elders and/or board members, surrounded by a team of engaged, involved volunteers and supportive members, surrounded by church-goers, the common folk who remain, for the most part, relatively disengaged, more like spectators in an audience.
Generally speaking, evangelicalism emerged out of the Reformation.
Picture yesteryear's typical European country where the Reformation took place. There's a king, surrounded by a chief of the court or two, surrounded by a team of advisers and secretaries - usually nobles with title who peddled influence, patronages and financial support, surrounded by a team of courtiers, surrounded by the common folk who had absolutely no influence except on those rare occasions where they may be granted an audience.
Generally speaking, the Reformation emerged out of the discontent of Catholicism and Christendom.
Picture Christendom. There's the pope, surrounded by archbishops and bishops, surrounded by priests and deacons, surrounded by nuns and lay servants, surrounded by lord and lady patrons, landowners and the merchant class, surrounded by the common folk who were for the most part, serfs and servants, who could only dream of an audience with the pope.
Generally speaking, Christendom emerged out of Constantine's empire and it's subsequent contextualization and institutionalization of the early church by the dominant and dominating warmongering culture
Prior to the legalization and institutionalization of the early church, you had communities of believers meeting here and there, in homes, catacombs, and barns; in forests, fields and fens. There was no single leader, but rather many, who discerned, deciphered and disseminated core teachings, doctrines and understandings, in teams, with teams, to teams. This was truly a non-hierarchical, egalitarian brother/sister hood of believers who gathered together in mutual love and service; leaders were identified by their humility, servant hood and fruit - not their degrees, charisma and programming. And leaders were tasked to share their wisdom in the mentoring and developing of other leaders.
Yes, there was one head - Christ - and the church was His body.
Picture Israel after it entered the promised land, and had been led by judges for several generations. No ruler except God, led by people God chose to speak and work through. But threatened by the dominant and dominating warmongering cultures around them, Israel demanded a king, so they could be like all those other nations (1 Sam 8:6). Israel's first king surrounded himself with people who agreed with him, surrounded by nobles and those in the inner circle, surrounded by patrons and influence peddlers, surrounded by the common folk.
See the pattern? From one context to the next, we have followed the same hierarchical pattern in all our institutions, from Israel's demand for a king to our present day lead - and often populist - pastor, with his/her inner circle of advisers and friends, leaving the common folk out of the equation.
Is it possible that it has been working "so well" like this for so long because the common folk want to be left out of the equation? Or don't really understand that they've been invited to be part of the equation?
Do we "demand" this model because it makes it easy to spectate? Or do we spectate because of the model? Are we saying, give us someone to lead us, other people to do all the work around "kingdom coming", and leave us, the common folk alone. Are we truly content to live our independent, individualistic lives, potentially shirking the responsibility we have for own spiritual growth, as well as the spiritual awakening of those around us?
Has this pattern become so part of our acculturation that we take it as a given, simply not seeing how restraining it has become?
followed by a barrage of thoughts that suggested today's present way of gathering for church emerged directly out of the king and court culture of Christendom, and beyond.
Hope you can track with me here...
Picture today's typical evangelical church. There's a head pastor, surrounded by a team of associates, surrounded by a team of elders and/or board members, surrounded by a team of engaged, involved volunteers and supportive members, surrounded by church-goers, the common folk who remain, for the most part, relatively disengaged, more like spectators in an audience.
Generally speaking, evangelicalism emerged out of the Reformation.
Picture yesteryear's typical European country where the Reformation took place. There's a king, surrounded by a chief of the court or two, surrounded by a team of advisers and secretaries - usually nobles with title who peddled influence, patronages and financial support, surrounded by a team of courtiers, surrounded by the common folk who had absolutely no influence except on those rare occasions where they may be granted an audience.
Generally speaking, the Reformation emerged out of the discontent of Catholicism and Christendom.
Picture Christendom. There's the pope, surrounded by archbishops and bishops, surrounded by priests and deacons, surrounded by nuns and lay servants, surrounded by lord and lady patrons, landowners and the merchant class, surrounded by the common folk who were for the most part, serfs and servants, who could only dream of an audience with the pope.
Generally speaking, Christendom emerged out of Constantine's empire and it's subsequent contextualization and institutionalization of the early church by the dominant and dominating warmongering culture
Prior to the legalization and institutionalization of the early church, you had communities of believers meeting here and there, in homes, catacombs, and barns; in forests, fields and fens. There was no single leader, but rather many, who discerned, deciphered and disseminated core teachings, doctrines and understandings, in teams, with teams, to teams. This was truly a non-hierarchical, egalitarian brother/sister hood of believers who gathered together in mutual love and service; leaders were identified by their humility, servant hood and fruit - not their degrees, charisma and programming. And leaders were tasked to share their wisdom in the mentoring and developing of other leaders.
Yes, there was one head - Christ - and the church was His body.
Picture Israel after it entered the promised land, and had been led by judges for several generations. No ruler except God, led by people God chose to speak and work through. But threatened by the dominant and dominating warmongering cultures around them, Israel demanded a king, so they could be like all those other nations (1 Sam 8:6). Israel's first king surrounded himself with people who agreed with him, surrounded by nobles and those in the inner circle, surrounded by patrons and influence peddlers, surrounded by the common folk.
See the pattern? From one context to the next, we have followed the same hierarchical pattern in all our institutions, from Israel's demand for a king to our present day lead - and often populist - pastor, with his/her inner circle of advisers and friends, leaving the common folk out of the equation.
Is it possible that it has been working "so well" like this for so long because the common folk want to be left out of the equation? Or don't really understand that they've been invited to be part of the equation?
Do we "demand" this model because it makes it easy to spectate? Or do we spectate because of the model? Are we saying, give us someone to lead us, other people to do all the work around "kingdom coming", and leave us, the common folk alone. Are we truly content to live our independent, individualistic lives, potentially shirking the responsibility we have for own spiritual growth, as well as the spiritual awakening of those around us?
Has this pattern become so part of our acculturation that we take it as a given, simply not seeing how restraining it has become?
Comments
Post a Comment