My good friend Dena sent me this a few days ago. None of this is original to me except these two top sentences. This was written by Wayne Jacobson a few years back:
Dear Fellow-believer,
I do appreciate your concern for me and your willingness to raise
issues that have caused you concern. I know the way I relate to the
church is a bit unconventional and some even call it dangerous.
Believe me, I understand that concern because I used to think that
way myself and even taught others to as well.
If you are happy with the status quo of organized religion today, you
may not like what you read here. My purpose is not to convince you to
see this incredible church the same way I do, but to answer your
questions as openly and honestly as I can. Even if we don't end up
agreeing, hopefully you will understand that our differences need not
estrange us as members of Christ's body.
Where do you go to church?
I have never liked this question, even when I was able to answer it
with a specific organization. I know what it means culturally, but it
is based on a false premise--that church is something you can go to
as in a specific event, location or organized group. I think Jesus
looks at the church quite differently. He didn't talk about it as a
place to go to, but a way of living in relationship to him and to
other followers of his.
Asking me where I go to church is like asking me where I go to
Jacobsen. How do I answer that? I am a Jacobsen and where I go a
Jacobsen is. 'Church' is that kind of word. It doesn't identify a
location or an institution. It describes a people and how they relate
to each other. If we lose sight of that, our understanding of the
church will be distorted and we'll miss out on much of its joy.
Are you just trying to avoid the question?
I know it may only sound like quibbling over words, but words are
important. When we only ascribe the term 'church' to weekend
gatherings or institutions that have organized themselves
as 'churches' we miss out on what it means to live as Christ's body.
It will give us a false sense of security to think that by attending
a meeting once a week we are participating in God's church.
Conversely I hear people talk about 'leaving the church' when they
stop attending a specific congregation.
But if the church is something we are, not someplace we go, how can
we leave it unless we abandon Christ himself? And if I think only of
a specific congregation as my part of the church, haven't I separated
myself from a host of other brothers and sisters that do not attend
the same one I do?
The idea that those who gather on Sunday mornings to watch a praise
concert and listen to a teaching are part of the church and those who
do not, are not, would be foreign to Jesus. The issue is not where we
are at a given time during the weekend, but how we are living in him
and with other believers all week long.
But don't we need regular fellowship?
I wouldn't say we need it. If we were in a place where we couldn't
find other believers, Jesus certainly would be able to take care of
us. Thus, I'd phrase that a bit differently: Will people who are
growing to know the Living God also desire real and meaningful
connections with other believers? Absolutely! The call to the kingdom
is not a call to isolation. Every person I've ever met who is
thriving in the life of Jesus has a desire to share authentic
fellowship with other believers. They realize that whatever they know
of God's life is just in part, and only the fullest revelation of him
is in the church.
But sometimes that kind of fellowship is not easy to find.
Periodically on this journey we may go through times when we can't
seem to find any other believers who share our hunger. That's
especially true for those who find that conforming to the
expectations of the religious institutions around them diminishes
their relationship with Jesus. They may find themselves excluded by
believers with whom they've shared close friendship. But no one going
through that looks on that time as a treat. It is incredibly painful
and they will look for other hungry believers to share the journey
with.
My favorite expression of body life is where a local group of people
chooses to walk together for a bit of the journey by cultivating
close friendships and learning how to listen to God together.
Shouldn't we be committed to a local fellowship?
That has been said so often today, that most of us assume it is in
the Bible somewhere. I haven't found it yet. Many of us have been led
to believe that we can't possibly survive without the 'covering of
the body' and will either fall into error or backslide into sin. But
doesn't that happen inside our local congregations as well?
I know many people who live outside those structures and find not
only an ever-deepening relationship with God, but also connections
with other believers that run far deeper than they found in the
institution. I haven't lost any of my passion for Jesus or my
affection for his church. If anything those have grown by leaps and
bounds in recent years.
Scripture does encourage us to be devoted to one another not
committed to an institution. Jesus indicated that whenever two or
three people get together focused on him, they would experience the
vitality of church life.
Is it helpful to regularly participate in a local expression of that
reality? Of course. But we make a huge mistake when we assume that
fellowship takes place just because we attend the same event
together, even regularly, or because we belong to the same
organization. Fellowship happens where people share the journey of
knowing Jesus together. It consists of open, honest sharing, genuine
concern about each other's spiritual well being and encouragement for
people to follow Jesus however he leads them.
But don't our institutions keep us from error?
I'm sorry to burst your bubble here, but every major heresy that has
been inflicted on God's people for the last 2,000 years has come from
organized groups with 'leaders' who thought they knew God's mind
better than anyone around them. Conversely, virtually every move of
God among people hungering for him was rejected by the 'church' of
that day and were excluded, excommunicated or executed for following
God.
If that is where you hope to find security, I'm afraid it is sorely
misplaced. Jesus didn't tell us that 'going to church' would keep us
safe, but that trusting him would. He gave us an anointing of the
Spirit so that we would know the difference between truth and error.
That anointing is cultivated as we learn his ways in his Word and
grow closer to his heart. It will help you recognize when expressions
of church you share life with becomes destructive to his work in you.
So are traditional congregations wrong?
Absolutely not! I have found many of them with people who love God
and are seeking to grow in his ways. I visit a couple of dozen
different congregations a year that I find are far more centered on
relationship than religion. Jesus is at the center of their life
together, and those who act as leaders are true servants and not
playing politics of leadership, so that all are encouraged to
minister to one another.
I pray that even more of them are renewed in a passion for Jesus, a
genuine concern for each other and a willingness to serve the world
with God's love. But I think we'd have to admit that these are rare
in our communities and many only last for a short span before they
unwittingly look to institutional answers for the needs of the body
instead of remaining dependent on Jesus. When that happens do not
feel condemned if God leads you not to go along with them.
So should I stop going to church, too?
I'm afraid that question also misses the point. You see I don't
believe you're going to church any more than I am. We're just part of
it. Be your part, however Jesus calls you to and wherever he places
you. Not all of us grow in the same environment.
If you gather with a group of believers at a specific time and place
and that participation helps you grow closer to Jesus and allows you
to follow his work in you, by all means don't think you have to
leave. Keep in mind, however, that of itself is not the church. It is
just one of many expressions of it in the place where you live.
Don't be tricked into thinking that just because you attend its
meetings you are experiencing real body life. That only comes as God
connects you with a handful of brothers and sisters with whom you can
build close friendships and share the real ups and downs of this
journey.
That can happen among traditional congregations, as it can also
happen beyond them. In the last seven years I've meet hundreds if not
thousands of people who have grown disillusioned with traditional
congregations and are thriving spiritually as they share God's life
with others, mostly in their homes.
Then meeting in homes is the answer?
Of course not. But let's be clear: as fun as it is to enjoy large
group worship and even be instructed by gifted teachers, the real joy
of body life can't be shared in huge groups. The church for its first
300 years found the home the perfect place to gather. They are much
more suited to the dynamics of family which is how Jesus described
his body.
But meeting in homes is no cure-all. I've been to some very sick home
meetings and met in facilities with groups who shared an authentic
body life together. But the time I spend in regular body life I want
to spend face to face with a group of people. I know it isn't popular
today where people find it is far easier to sit through a finely-
tuned (or not so finely-tuned) service and go home without ever
having to open up our life or care about another person's journey.
But ultimately what matters most to me is not where or how they meet,
but whether or not people are focused on Jesus and really helping
each other on the journey to becoming like him. Meetings are less the
issue here than the quality of relationships. I am always looking for
people like that wherever I am and always rejoice when I find it. In
our new home in Oxnard, we've found a few folks and are hopeful to
find even more.
Aren't you just reacting out of hurt?
I suppose that is possible and time will tell, I guess, but I
honestly don't believe so. Anyone who is engaged in real body life
will get hurt at times. But there are two kinds of hurt. There's the
kind of pain that points to a problem that can be fixed with the
right care—such as a badly sprained ankle. Then there's the kind of
pain that can only be fixed by pulling away—as when you put your hand
on a hot stove.
Perhaps all of us have experienced some measure of pain as we have
tried to fit God's life into institutions. For a long time most of us
hung in there hoping if we tweaked a few things it would get better.
Though we could be successful in limited ways during moments of
renewal, we also discovered that eventually the conformity an
institution demands and the freedom people need to grow in Christ are
at odds with one another. It has happened with virtually every group
formed throughout the history of Christianity.
Are you looking for the perfect church?
No, and I don't anticipate finding one this side of eternity.
Perfection is not my goal, but finding people with God's priorities.
It's one thing for people to struggle toward an ideal they share
together. It's another to realize that our ideals have little in
common.
I make no secret of the fact that I am deeply troubled by the state
of organized Christianity. Most of what we call 'church' today are
nothing more than well-planned performances with little actual
connection between believers. Believers are encouraged toward a
growing dependency on the system or its leadership rather than on
Jesus himself. We spend more energy conforming behavior to what the
institution needs rather than helping people be transformed at the
foot of the cross!
I'm tired of trying to fellowship with people who only view church as
a two-hour a week dumping ground for guilt while they live the rest
of the week with the same priorities as the world. I'm tired of those
who depend on their own works of righteousness but who have no
compassion for the people of the world. I'm tired of insecure people
using the Body of Christ as an extension of their own ego and will
manipulate it to satisfy their own needs. I'm tired of sermons more
filled with the bondage of religion than the freedom of God's love
and where relationships take a back seat to the demands of an
efficient institution.
But don't our children need church activities?
I'd suggest that what they need most is to be integrated into God's
life through relational fellowship with other believers. 92% of
children who grow up in Sunday schools with all the puppets and high-
powered entertainment, leave 'church' when they leave their parents'
home? Instead of filling our children with ethics and rules we need
to demonstrate how to live in God's life together.
Even sociologists tell us that the #1 factor in determining whether a
child will thrive in society is if they have deep, personal
friendships with nonrelative adults. No Sunday school can fill that
role. I know of one community in Australia who after 20 years of
sharing God's life together as families could say that they had not
lost one child to the faith as they grew into adulthood. I know I cut
across the grain here, but it is far more important that our children
experience real fellowship among believers rather than the bells and
whistles of a slick children's program.
What dynamics of body life do you look for?
I'm always looking for a people who are seeking to follow the Living
Christ. He is at the center of their lives, their affections and
their conversation. They look to be authentic and free others to hurt
when they hurt, to question what they question and to follow his
voice without others accusing them of being divisive or rebellious. I
look for people who are not wasting their money on extravagant
buildings or flashy programs; where people sitting next to each other
are not strangers; and where they all participate as a priesthood to
God instead of watch passively from a safe distance.
Aren't you giving people an excuse to sit home and do nothing?
I hope not, though I know it is a danger. I realize some people who
leave traditional congregations end up abusing that freedom to
satisfy their own desires and thus miss out on church life
altogether. Neither am I a fan of 'church hoppers', who whip around
to one place after another looking for the latest fad or the best
opportunity to fulfill their own selfish desires.
But most of the people I meet and talk with are not outside the
system because they have lost their passion for Jesus or his people,
but only because the traditional congregations near them couldn't
satisfy their hunger for relationship. They are seeking authentic
expressions of body life and pay an incredible cost to seek it out.
Believe me, we would all find it easier just to go with the flow, but
once you've tasted of living fellowship between passionate believers,
it is impossible to settle for anything less.
Isn't this view of church divisive?
Not of itself. People make it divisive when they demand that people
conform to their revelation of truth. Most of us on the journey are
accused of being divisive because freedom can be threatening to those
who find their security in a religious system. But must of us aren't
trying to recruit others to leave their congregations. We see the
body of Christ big enough to encompass God's people however he calls
them to gather.
One of the things often said about traditional church is that Sunday
morning is the most segregated hour in American culture. We only meet
with people who look like we do and like things the way we do. I've
found now that I have far more opportunity to get with people from a
broader cross-section of his body. I don't demand others do it my way
and I hope in time that those who see it differently will stop
demanding we conform to theirs.
Where can I find that kind of fellowship?
There's no easy answer here. It might be right in front of you among
the fellowship you're already in. It might be down the street in your
neighborhood or across a cubicle at work. You can also get involved
in compassionate outreaches to the needy and broken in your locality
as a way to live out his life in you and meet others with a similar
hunger.
Don't expect this kind of fellowship to fall easily into an
organization. It is organic, and Jesus can lead you to it right where
you are. Look for him to put a dozen or so folks around your life
with whom you can share the journey. They may not even all go to the
same congregation you do. They might be neighbors or coworkers who
are following after God. Wouldn't that kind of interconnection among
God's people yield some incredible fruit?
Don't expect it to be easy or run smoothly. It will take some
specific choices on our part to be obedient to Jesus. It may take
some training to shake off old habits and be free to let him build
his community around you, but it is all worth it. I know it bothers
some people that I don't take my regular place in a pew on Sunday
morning, but I can tell you absolutely that my worst days outside
organized religion are still better than my best days inside it. To
me the difference is like listening to someone talk about golf or
actually taking a set of clubs out to a course and playing golf.
Being his church is like that. In our day we don't need more talk
about the church, but people who are simply ready to live in its
reality.
People all over the world are freshly discovering how to do that
again. You can be one of them as you let him place you in his body as
he desires.
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Being Church
My husband and I used to attend the Assemblies of God church that I've complained about in earlier entries. Tonight we had some friends over from that church -- beautiful people whom we love a lot -- and spent some time talking about the goings-on at that church since we left it.
They mentioned one time during this very snowy winter when the church service was canceled, and in a knee-jerk reaction I said, "Oh, we should have gone!"
The one time we enjoyed that church more than any other time was once when the service was canceled due to snow, and we didn't hear about it in time. We went anyway, and so did perhaps a dozen other people. It was the best time we've ever had at that church! Someone put on some music in the sanctuary, and a couple of people went in there to pray and worship in song. One woman danced in worship, someone whom I've never seen dance during the "worship service" at all. A lot of us hung out in the lobby, just chatting and shooting the breeze. I started talking with a woman whom I'd been wanting to get to know for a while, but we just hadn't clicked yet. She and I talked for a good hour, getting to know each other and finding out how much we had in common. It was great... and more to the point, it was church.
During the time when our attendance was trailing off, Grey went to church by himself one morning. There was the usual bellowing guy, the red-haired Southern woman hollering out some "prophesy" full of thees and thous (because everyone knows that's how God really talks, right?), and Grey got fed up and walked out before the singing had even ended.
A woman driving past had stopped right across the street. Her car tire had blown out, and there was something else wrong with her car; it wouldn't start. Grey went over to see if he could help. He ended up changing her tire for her, and then used his own AAA card to call for a tow truck. He even waited for the tow-truck with her. She thanked him profusely and drove away.
A week later, Grey got mail from this lady, who had heard him giving his name and address to the AAA rep in the tow truck. She send him a thank-you card with a gift certificate in it, and asked for God to bless him.
It's ironic that Grey got the opportunity to BE church for this woman only after he had become fed up with "church" and walked out. I'm sure many of the congregants still sitting in there were judging Grey as somehow less-holy-than-they, for walking out, but the fact is that he was obviously supposed to leave when he did, and he got an opportunity to serve that they were denied.
Moral of the story: it is far more important to BE church than to "go to church."
They mentioned one time during this very snowy winter when the church service was canceled, and in a knee-jerk reaction I said, "Oh, we should have gone!"
The one time we enjoyed that church more than any other time was once when the service was canceled due to snow, and we didn't hear about it in time. We went anyway, and so did perhaps a dozen other people. It was the best time we've ever had at that church! Someone put on some music in the sanctuary, and a couple of people went in there to pray and worship in song. One woman danced in worship, someone whom I've never seen dance during the "worship service" at all. A lot of us hung out in the lobby, just chatting and shooting the breeze. I started talking with a woman whom I'd been wanting to get to know for a while, but we just hadn't clicked yet. She and I talked for a good hour, getting to know each other and finding out how much we had in common. It was great... and more to the point, it was church.
During the time when our attendance was trailing off, Grey went to church by himself one morning. There was the usual bellowing guy, the red-haired Southern woman hollering out some "prophesy" full of thees and thous (because everyone knows that's how God really talks, right?), and Grey got fed up and walked out before the singing had even ended.
A woman driving past had stopped right across the street. Her car tire had blown out, and there was something else wrong with her car; it wouldn't start. Grey went over to see if he could help. He ended up changing her tire for her, and then used his own AAA card to call for a tow truck. He even waited for the tow-truck with her. She thanked him profusely and drove away.
A week later, Grey got mail from this lady, who had heard him giving his name and address to the AAA rep in the tow truck. She send him a thank-you card with a gift certificate in it, and asked for God to bless him.
It's ironic that Grey got the opportunity to BE church for this woman only after he had become fed up with "church" and walked out. I'm sure many of the congregants still sitting in there were judging Grey as somehow less-holy-than-they, for walking out, but the fact is that he was obviously supposed to leave when he did, and he got an opportunity to serve that they were denied.
Moral of the story: it is far more important to BE church than to "go to church."
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Thoughts on Authority
Been thinking a lot about authority issues lately. I know that I have them -- "issues" (read: problems) with accepting someone's authority over me who in my opinion isn't supposed to have it. Especially among believers this seems to be a problem.
On one of the message boards I sometimes haunt, a poster called "Nice" has this to say: "I wanted to add my thoughts on...the difference between to have authority to do something and to have authority over somebody. I think there's big difference between these two...I think that when authority is being exercised, it’s always in some kind of context; usually an organization that contains some kind of hierarchy. Organizations and hierarchies can be either flat, vertical or both (in it's structure). Such “organization” could be the family, the workplace, the government, an association etc. It is often said that the biblical "organization" is the vertical; most often referring to the order of creation (genesis 1:28 and 1 cor 11:13 and also Rom 13:1 (that last scripture isn’t about the order of creation)).
But I think Jesus, He who himself is the Word of God, adds another perspective when he says
"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)
“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. (John 13:14)
“Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Jesus talks about himself as if he was” the least” in heaven??) (Matt 11:11)
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Jesus identify himself with the least) (Matt 25:40).
Some say those scriptures are about the attitude we should have as christians, and I think that's right. However I do think Jesus turns the human perspective up side down. I wonder if this could mean that there is a difference between “to have authority over …” and “to have authority to ….” if you understand what I mean with that. The first one can only (I think?) occur in a vertical organization. The second may very well be exercised in a flat (and more equal) organization.
For example if you have a spiritual gift, let’s say, to prophecy, than you have a God given mandate to do so. The person who prophecy has an authority to do so, but does he has authority over them who are receiving the prophecy? Hardly. At least I don't think so anyway.
Another example is if you’re a doctor, then you have the authority to diagnose and treat people but you don’t have authority over them do you?
In a marriage, we have different roles. The husband have the authority to be the head but does that mean that he has authority over his wife? Well, not if they are equal. That would seem contradictory to me. The children however, we can say we have authority over because they aren’t adults. When one says women can’t teach men because then they will exercise authority over men, then one must consistently say that women cannot exercise any form of prophesying, teaching or caring or anything else where the man must submit to the woman’s ministry. However, it seems to me that the Bible contradicts that (Luke 2:36, Rom 12:6 fwd, 1 Cor 11:5 )...
We are all to serve each other with the amount of talents ("authority") we've been given. Matt 25:14
And for that to be possible... We must submit to one another!
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" Eph 5:21
Nice has hit the nail on the head here. She is talking about authority in a marriage, while I was talking about authority in the church, but the basic principle is the same. The pastor does not have authority OVER his congregants. He has authority TO... do what? Serve them. And yet how often does he serve them without lording it over them as well?
That's one of my biggest beefs with the institutional church lately: one person (a man) has charge over the whole group. He's the one who decides who is to speak when, what songs they'll sing, how everything will fit together, and he's the one who does the preaching.
This attitude of one man being in charge of everything is TOTALLY against scripture. As is the concept of one person doing all the preaching and teaching. The Bible tells us that "each of you" is to prepare a teaching, a song, offer a prayer, etc. and then take turns so that everything remains orderly. When's the last time you attended an institutional church where that happened? Even so-called "Bible believing" churches tend not to follow the format for gatherings that is laid out very clearly in 1 Corinthians.
Every believer is anointed, yes. Every believer is also an authority over every other believer, and is also to submit to every other believer.
Re Ephesians 5: I know I've mentioned this elsewhere on this blog, but I'll say it again: I discovered that in Ephesians 5, when it says wives should submit to their husbands, it's a continuation of thought in the previous verse: we believers are to submit to each other! It's not a separate thought at all, as I had been taught: it's the same word. It's not even a repetition of the same word -- that word is used only once, in the Greek, to cover BOTH the submitting to each other AND the wives submitting to their husbands.
That seems to say to me that all believers are to submit to one another -- wives in one way, and husbands in another. Husbands get to be the servant, "point man" and protector, and wives get to be the servant, strong rescuer (gen 2:18), and rule over the household (Prov. 31).
Key point there is that both partners are servants to the other. That is where TRUE authority lies: in serving. Not in taking charge.
On one of the message boards I sometimes haunt, a poster called "Nice" has this to say: "I wanted to add my thoughts on...the difference between to have authority to do something and to have authority over somebody. I think there's big difference between these two...I think that when authority is being exercised, it’s always in some kind of context; usually an organization that contains some kind of hierarchy. Organizations and hierarchies can be either flat, vertical or both (in it's structure). Such “organization” could be the family, the workplace, the government, an association etc. It is often said that the biblical "organization" is the vertical; most often referring to the order of creation (genesis 1:28 and 1 cor 11:13 and also Rom 13:1 (that last scripture isn’t about the order of creation)).
But I think Jesus, He who himself is the Word of God, adds another perspective when he says
"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)
“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. (John 13:14)
“Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Jesus talks about himself as if he was” the least” in heaven??) (Matt 11:11)
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Jesus identify himself with the least) (Matt 25:40).
Some say those scriptures are about the attitude we should have as christians, and I think that's right. However I do think Jesus turns the human perspective up side down. I wonder if this could mean that there is a difference between “to have authority over …” and “to have authority to ….” if you understand what I mean with that. The first one can only (I think?) occur in a vertical organization. The second may very well be exercised in a flat (and more equal) organization.
For example if you have a spiritual gift, let’s say, to prophecy, than you have a God given mandate to do so. The person who prophecy has an authority to do so, but does he has authority over them who are receiving the prophecy? Hardly. At least I don't think so anyway.
Another example is if you’re a doctor, then you have the authority to diagnose and treat people but you don’t have authority over them do you?
In a marriage, we have different roles. The husband have the authority to be the head but does that mean that he has authority over his wife? Well, not if they are equal. That would seem contradictory to me. The children however, we can say we have authority over because they aren’t adults. When one says women can’t teach men because then they will exercise authority over men, then one must consistently say that women cannot exercise any form of prophesying, teaching or caring or anything else where the man must submit to the woman’s ministry. However, it seems to me that the Bible contradicts that (Luke 2:36, Rom 12:6 fwd, 1 Cor 11:5 )...
We are all to serve each other with the amount of talents ("authority") we've been given. Matt 25:14
And for that to be possible... We must submit to one another!
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" Eph 5:21
Nice has hit the nail on the head here. She is talking about authority in a marriage, while I was talking about authority in the church, but the basic principle is the same. The pastor does not have authority OVER his congregants. He has authority TO... do what? Serve them. And yet how often does he serve them without lording it over them as well?
That's one of my biggest beefs with the institutional church lately: one person (a man) has charge over the whole group. He's the one who decides who is to speak when, what songs they'll sing, how everything will fit together, and he's the one who does the preaching.
This attitude of one man being in charge of everything is TOTALLY against scripture. As is the concept of one person doing all the preaching and teaching. The Bible tells us that "each of you" is to prepare a teaching, a song, offer a prayer, etc. and then take turns so that everything remains orderly. When's the last time you attended an institutional church where that happened? Even so-called "Bible believing" churches tend not to follow the format for gatherings that is laid out very clearly in 1 Corinthians.
Every believer is anointed, yes. Every believer is also an authority over every other believer, and is also to submit to every other believer.
Re Ephesians 5: I know I've mentioned this elsewhere on this blog, but I'll say it again: I discovered that in Ephesians 5, when it says wives should submit to their husbands, it's a continuation of thought in the previous verse: we believers are to submit to each other! It's not a separate thought at all, as I had been taught: it's the same word. It's not even a repetition of the same word -- that word is used only once, in the Greek, to cover BOTH the submitting to each other AND the wives submitting to their husbands.
That seems to say to me that all believers are to submit to one another -- wives in one way, and husbands in another. Husbands get to be the servant, "point man" and protector, and wives get to be the servant, strong rescuer (gen 2:18), and rule over the household (Prov. 31).
Key point there is that both partners are servants to the other. That is where TRUE authority lies: in serving. Not in taking charge.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Don't Complain, Unless You Can Offer Something Better
I have been complaining quite a bit lately about churches in general and my church in specific. I've been talking about how little actual give-and-take there is, how much division -- not only doctrinally, but between age-groups -- how much sexism, and how little genuineness there is. Or even how boring it is to always follow the same formula, and how hard it is to actually "get something" from the sermon every week -- while at the same time being prevented from ministering the way we feel called to do.
Well, as my grandmother once said, "Don't complain, unless you can offer something better." While I don't totally agree with her -- sometimes complaints are the only things that lead to making things better -- I have thought and prayed about it for a long time and have finally come up with something better.
Here it is:
When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. If prayers are offered in tongues, two or three's the limit, and then only if someone is present who can interpret what you're saying. Otherwise, keep it between God and yourself. And no more than two or three speakers at a meeting, with the rest of you listening and taking it to heart. Take your turn, no one person taking over. Then each speaker gets a chance to say something special from God, and you all learn from each other. If you choose to speak, you're also responsible for how and when you speak. When we worship the right way, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.
If this sounds familiar to anyone, that's because it's not really my idea. God had it first. This is The Message's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33.
I read this to Grey tonight, asking him to keep in mind our usual church-going rituals. I asked him, "When is the last time we gathered together with everyone having the opportunity to share a song, prayer, or teaching as he or she was led? And with no one taking over? He pointed out that our church, the "worship team" sings... and we listen to them and sing (always following their lead of course). Then someone else gets up and prays... and we listen to him and agree. Then someone might give a testimony... and we listen and applaud. Then the pastor gets up and preaches... and we listen. That's an awful lot of listening, my friends.
So when did being the Body of Christ become a spectator sport? All the references in the New Testament that I've ever found talk about how inclusive and involved the early believers were with one another, and how very much into giving, sharing, and mutuality they were. So why do we go to church and sit there like bumps on logs (or saints on pews) just to listen?
I've been studying 1 Corinthians for a while now, trying to learn about Body life. Here's another little gem that I've gleaned from it, also from The Message (1 Cor 12: 14-20):
A body isn't just a single part blown up into something huge. It's all the different-but-similar parts arranged and functioning together. If Foot said, "I'm not elegant like Hand, embellished with rings; I guess I don't belong to this body," would that make it so? If Ear said, "I'm not beautiful like Eye, limpid and expressive; I don't deserve a place on the head," would you want to remove it from the body? If the body was all eye, how could it hear? If all ear, how could it smell? As it is, we see that God has carefully placed each part of the body right where he wanted it. 19-24But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn't be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own.
So now that we've established that the order of service pretty much disempowers all the congregants to being a bunch of little ears, just sitting there and taking it all in -- what about the pastor? If we're the ears, he's the mouth. Is he the mouth of God? Hmmm. Now, there's a question, isn't it?
This morning my son and I actually went to church, to the same one we've been attending for three years. Our pastor got up and gave a little talk and as usual, he went off on a rabbit trail. He said, "There, that's a sermonette." Then he laughed and went on, "You know what you get when you have sermonettes, don't you? You get 'Christianettes.'"
Oh, I can't even begin to count the number of things wrong with that little joke of his. I'll try, though, because it bothered me too much to just let it rest.
1) Sermons make Christians.
2)Sermon-listening turns Christians from miniature ones to being full-size.
3) It puts the entire responsibility for spiritual growth onto the shoulders of the pastor.
4) It completely discounts the ability of the Holy Spirit to help Christians mature.
5) It diminishes all other aspects of Body life, making sermon-listening the only thing that helps Christians mature.
That's enough for now... and ordinarily I would just laugh it off as a joke of his... except this wasn't the first time I've heard it.
But while we're on the subject, let's talk about the pastor. Specifically, let's talk about the idea of a group of believers hiring someone to come and teach them week after week. Where is this idea found in scripture? Scripture shows us lots of examples of early believers sharing responsibilities equally -- each one according to his gifts, yes, but there is not supposed to be any external judging of gifting. No one person was supposed to be in charge of how things were run -- they were to depend solely upon the Holy spirit's leading to keep order... and the thing is, Paul tells us that if they do, then order is kept. No one else is supposed to be telling others to teach, or sing, or whatever; they're supposed to depend on the Holy Spirit's leading to prepare something for themselves, to share with each other.
There's that "each other" phrase again, implying mutuality, turnabout, and deferring to one another. Grey and I were wondering today just how that would look, in our church. The pastor is very much in charge. He shares the responsibilities with three elders (two now, since one moved away), but with this church so heavily into the unscriptural "Covering" doctrine, everything has to pass by him and receive his OK before it becomes part of the "order of service." So really, he's doing the Holy Spirit's job. And he's also doing the congregants' job, whose responsibility it is to bring the teaching. And with him putting his head together with the worship team, they're doing the congregants' jobs as well, who are supposed to be the ones preparing and bringing hymns and songs for the corporate worship.
No wonder the poor man's burned out. Not only is he doing the job of 50 people, but he's doing God's job too!
And yet, if I were to tell him this, it would be considered borderline heretical.
Well, as my grandmother once said, "Don't complain, unless you can offer something better." While I don't totally agree with her -- sometimes complaints are the only things that lead to making things better -- I have thought and prayed about it for a long time and have finally come up with something better.
Here it is:
When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. If prayers are offered in tongues, two or three's the limit, and then only if someone is present who can interpret what you're saying. Otherwise, keep it between God and yourself. And no more than two or three speakers at a meeting, with the rest of you listening and taking it to heart. Take your turn, no one person taking over. Then each speaker gets a chance to say something special from God, and you all learn from each other. If you choose to speak, you're also responsible for how and when you speak. When we worship the right way, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.
If this sounds familiar to anyone, that's because it's not really my idea. God had it first. This is The Message's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33.
I read this to Grey tonight, asking him to keep in mind our usual church-going rituals. I asked him, "When is the last time we gathered together with everyone having the opportunity to share a song, prayer, or teaching as he or she was led? And with no one taking over? He pointed out that our church, the "worship team" sings... and we listen to them and sing (always following their lead of course). Then someone else gets up and prays... and we listen to him and agree. Then someone might give a testimony... and we listen and applaud. Then the pastor gets up and preaches... and we listen. That's an awful lot of listening, my friends.
So when did being the Body of Christ become a spectator sport? All the references in the New Testament that I've ever found talk about how inclusive and involved the early believers were with one another, and how very much into giving, sharing, and mutuality they were. So why do we go to church and sit there like bumps on logs (or saints on pews) just to listen?
I've been studying 1 Corinthians for a while now, trying to learn about Body life. Here's another little gem that I've gleaned from it, also from The Message (1 Cor 12: 14-20):
A body isn't just a single part blown up into something huge. It's all the different-but-similar parts arranged and functioning together. If Foot said, "I'm not elegant like Hand, embellished with rings; I guess I don't belong to this body," would that make it so? If Ear said, "I'm not beautiful like Eye, limpid and expressive; I don't deserve a place on the head," would you want to remove it from the body? If the body was all eye, how could it hear? If all ear, how could it smell? As it is, we see that God has carefully placed each part of the body right where he wanted it. 19-24But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn't be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own.
So now that we've established that the order of service pretty much disempowers all the congregants to being a bunch of little ears, just sitting there and taking it all in -- what about the pastor? If we're the ears, he's the mouth. Is he the mouth of God? Hmmm. Now, there's a question, isn't it?
This morning my son and I actually went to church, to the same one we've been attending for three years. Our pastor got up and gave a little talk and as usual, he went off on a rabbit trail. He said, "There, that's a sermonette." Then he laughed and went on, "You know what you get when you have sermonettes, don't you? You get 'Christianettes.'"
Oh, I can't even begin to count the number of things wrong with that little joke of his. I'll try, though, because it bothered me too much to just let it rest.
1) Sermons make Christians.
2)Sermon-listening turns Christians from miniature ones to being full-size.
3) It puts the entire responsibility for spiritual growth onto the shoulders of the pastor.
4) It completely discounts the ability of the Holy Spirit to help Christians mature.
5) It diminishes all other aspects of Body life, making sermon-listening the only thing that helps Christians mature.
That's enough for now... and ordinarily I would just laugh it off as a joke of his... except this wasn't the first time I've heard it.
But while we're on the subject, let's talk about the pastor. Specifically, let's talk about the idea of a group of believers hiring someone to come and teach them week after week. Where is this idea found in scripture? Scripture shows us lots of examples of early believers sharing responsibilities equally -- each one according to his gifts, yes, but there is not supposed to be any external judging of gifting. No one person was supposed to be in charge of how things were run -- they were to depend solely upon the Holy spirit's leading to keep order... and the thing is, Paul tells us that if they do, then order is kept. No one else is supposed to be telling others to teach, or sing, or whatever; they're supposed to depend on the Holy Spirit's leading to prepare something for themselves, to share with each other.
There's that "each other" phrase again, implying mutuality, turnabout, and deferring to one another. Grey and I were wondering today just how that would look, in our church. The pastor is very much in charge. He shares the responsibilities with three elders (two now, since one moved away), but with this church so heavily into the unscriptural "Covering" doctrine, everything has to pass by him and receive his OK before it becomes part of the "order of service." So really, he's doing the Holy Spirit's job. And he's also doing the congregants' job, whose responsibility it is to bring the teaching. And with him putting his head together with the worship team, they're doing the congregants' jobs as well, who are supposed to be the ones preparing and bringing hymns and songs for the corporate worship.
No wonder the poor man's burned out. Not only is he doing the job of 50 people, but he's doing God's job too!
And yet, if I were to tell him this, it would be considered borderline heretical.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Feminists and the Church
In recent years, there is a huge schism between feminists and the church. Christians who believe in equal rights and respect for women are afraid to call themselves "feminists" because of hate-spewing bigots like Andrea Dworkin who literally gave feminism a bad name... and feminists who believe and worship Jesus are afraid to call themselves Christians because of misogynistic (and racist) bigots like Bob Jones and his ilk.
But in the roots of feminism, there were very close ties with the Christian community; in fact, the Salvation Army was especially active in promoting women's rights (and many of the first-wave feminists were active in the church as well). It seems that the first-wave feminists and the church of a hundred years ago were both a lot more enlightened than we are today.
Modern feminists, however, hate Christianity because it's so "patriarchal." The reason it is patriarchal is that there have been centuries' worth of wrong teachings concerning certain passages mostly penned by St. Paul. Women being silent in the church and not usurping authority over a man -- that was a directive for one particular church that was having a problem with the women shouting questions to their husbands (men and women didn't sit together), having them answered (loudly) by other women who didn't know any better than they, and just generally being disruptive. Women submitting to their husbands was essentially the same thing that husbands were being asked to do for their wives. Yet people have misinterpreted these passages for hundreds of years and used them to essentially enslave women through spiritual abuse.
What's happening, though, is that even in this modern age, churches are still preaching these mistaken views of women -- and it's proving a real hindrance to the educated, modern, thinking woman who doesn't know Christ.
Don't get me wrong -- many churches and pastors will spout the party line of Galatians 3:28. They'll say that men and women are equal in Christ, but that God has given them different "roles" -- to men, a leadership role, and to women, a subordinate, helping role. Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound too equal to me... or if it does, it's only equality in the Orwellian sense.
So when Christians start to witness to feminists, they have to be aware that feminists are even less likely to like Christianity because once the church starts telling them how equal they are in Christ -- "You're equal, but you've gotta submit to your husband. No, he doesn't have to submit to you; it's a one-way street -- but don't worry! You're really equal!" -- they're not gonna go for it.
They're not going to listen to anything that has to do with how "sacrificial" the husband's love is; they're going to hear "he gets to make the decisions," and "you have to do what he says." Not only that, but many churches would also say, "Oh, you're equal to men in Christ -- but you can't teach them anything; your ministry is limited to women and children. Maybe boy children if we're feeling magnanimous. But don't worry-- you're really equal!"
Might as well be sitting around chanting "Two legs, bad! Four legs good!" and "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Orwellian church? I'll pass, thanks.
But in the roots of feminism, there were very close ties with the Christian community; in fact, the Salvation Army was especially active in promoting women's rights (and many of the first-wave feminists were active in the church as well). It seems that the first-wave feminists and the church of a hundred years ago were both a lot more enlightened than we are today.
Modern feminists, however, hate Christianity because it's so "patriarchal." The reason it is patriarchal is that there have been centuries' worth of wrong teachings concerning certain passages mostly penned by St. Paul. Women being silent in the church and not usurping authority over a man -- that was a directive for one particular church that was having a problem with the women shouting questions to their husbands (men and women didn't sit together), having them answered (loudly) by other women who didn't know any better than they, and just generally being disruptive. Women submitting to their husbands was essentially the same thing that husbands were being asked to do for their wives. Yet people have misinterpreted these passages for hundreds of years and used them to essentially enslave women through spiritual abuse.
What's happening, though, is that even in this modern age, churches are still preaching these mistaken views of women -- and it's proving a real hindrance to the educated, modern, thinking woman who doesn't know Christ.
Don't get me wrong -- many churches and pastors will spout the party line of Galatians 3:28. They'll say that men and women are equal in Christ, but that God has given them different "roles" -- to men, a leadership role, and to women, a subordinate, helping role. Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound too equal to me... or if it does, it's only equality in the Orwellian sense.
So when Christians start to witness to feminists, they have to be aware that feminists are even less likely to like Christianity because once the church starts telling them how equal they are in Christ -- "You're equal, but you've gotta submit to your husband. No, he doesn't have to submit to you; it's a one-way street -- but don't worry! You're really equal!" -- they're not gonna go for it.
They're not going to listen to anything that has to do with how "sacrificial" the husband's love is; they're going to hear "he gets to make the decisions," and "you have to do what he says." Not only that, but many churches would also say, "Oh, you're equal to men in Christ -- but you can't teach them anything; your ministry is limited to women and children. Maybe boy children if we're feeling magnanimous. But don't worry-- you're really equal!"
Might as well be sitting around chanting "Two legs, bad! Four legs good!" and "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Orwellian church? I'll pass, thanks.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
They Day They Canceled Church
I was talking about this topic with Grey again (strangely enough, it tends to come up on a weekly basis...) and we both agreed that our absolute favorite church service EVER was one time a couple years ago when we got a blizzard and "regular" church was canceled.
There were some who live in the building, and some like us who hadn't gotten the phone call about its being canceled, so maybe 17 or 20 people showed up. And stayed. And it was CHURCH, I'm telling you.
Someone had put on some praise music in the sanctuary, and there were a few people in there singing along and worshipping through music and dance (people who wouldn't dare to dance in front of everyone else). One person sang a solo for whoever was there to listen. There were three or four sitting off in a corner praying together. There were several out in the lobby, just chit-chatting.
That's where I was, and that morning I got to know one of the most amazing women in the whole church -- and she's kind of intimidating, so I would probably never have spoken to her on a regular Sunday morning. Some of the guys got to talking, and when one mentioned a repair problem that he'd been having, a couple others went off with him right then to help him fix it. Grey hung around chatting with us for a while, and went off with our son for a while, and then came back and sort of flitted from one group to another. Our son had a blast; he appointed himself unofficial babysitter for one of the other younger ones (he was only 5 himself), and kept reporting to the baby's mother what the baby was doing. Usually the two kids would have been in different classes (age-segregated), but that morning they both really enjoyed playing together.
Some of the folks in the lobby were talking about lighthearted stuff, and another little knot of people were doing Bible research into a point of doctrine that they were discussing.
It was all completely unstructured, no one was in charge, and we were all there worshipping and fellowshipping together. No one had to shush the kids, no one had to do any lesson plans or come up with a sermon, and people could come and go as it suited them.
As I recall, my antisocial husband and I ended up staying far longer than we've ever stayed for a church service before. He's usually one of those "first out the door" kind of guys. And when we left, we felt this sense of total spiritual satisfaction that I don't think we've ever been able to attain since then.
I swear, I would LOVE going to church if they would only cancel it every week!
There were some who live in the building, and some like us who hadn't gotten the phone call about its being canceled, so maybe 17 or 20 people showed up. And stayed. And it was CHURCH, I'm telling you.
Someone had put on some praise music in the sanctuary, and there were a few people in there singing along and worshipping through music and dance (people who wouldn't dare to dance in front of everyone else). One person sang a solo for whoever was there to listen. There were three or four sitting off in a corner praying together. There were several out in the lobby, just chit-chatting.
That's where I was, and that morning I got to know one of the most amazing women in the whole church -- and she's kind of intimidating, so I would probably never have spoken to her on a regular Sunday morning. Some of the guys got to talking, and when one mentioned a repair problem that he'd been having, a couple others went off with him right then to help him fix it. Grey hung around chatting with us for a while, and went off with our son for a while, and then came back and sort of flitted from one group to another. Our son had a blast; he appointed himself unofficial babysitter for one of the other younger ones (he was only 5 himself), and kept reporting to the baby's mother what the baby was doing. Usually the two kids would have been in different classes (age-segregated), but that morning they both really enjoyed playing together.
Some of the folks in the lobby were talking about lighthearted stuff, and another little knot of people were doing Bible research into a point of doctrine that they were discussing.
It was all completely unstructured, no one was in charge, and we were all there worshipping and fellowshipping together. No one had to shush the kids, no one had to do any lesson plans or come up with a sermon, and people could come and go as it suited them.
As I recall, my antisocial husband and I ended up staying far longer than we've ever stayed for a church service before. He's usually one of those "first out the door" kind of guys. And when we left, we felt this sense of total spiritual satisfaction that I don't think we've ever been able to attain since then.
I swear, I would LOVE going to church if they would only cancel it every week!
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The "Covering" Doctrine of Authority
Our church is big into the concept of "covering." We wanted to offer a Crown Financial Ministries small group study to our fellow parishioners a year ago, but when I broached the topic to the pastor's wife (who is in charge of the majority of the ministries there), she took control of the idea. I had been thinking to meet in our home, but she said no, they'd rather have it there in the church meetingroom so they could have it under their "covering." They didn't want to use Crown materials, but instead use "HomeBuilder" materials instead, which apparently has a financial piece to it. She did offer us the chance to lead the finances class, but only in their building and using their stuff, and she specifically said it was so that we could be under their "covering." (Never once did she ask to see the Crown materials that we already had -- it was their way or the highway, it seemed.)
Last summer they did a whole big video series, 3 months' worth, called "Under Cover" by John Bevere. The whole point of it was all about respecting the authority which God has placed over you -- which is all right and good -- but then he said that the church (read: pastor) is the principle authority that God has placed over you.
He said that pastors should be obeyed; the example our pastor came up with was that if he asked all the men to wear Hawaiian shirts to church on Sundays, and they didn't have a spiritual, Biblical reason not to, then they should all wear them. Because he, the pastor, was placed in authority over us, and we owed him our respect and to a certain extent, our obedience.
To me, that smacks of cultism, to be quite honest.
Whatever happened to God's being our authority?
Another thing: I know several pastors and their wives in real life, and they all say that they can't have real, deep, open friendships with people in their congregation. They can't "confess their sins one to another" unless the "one another" is a bunch of other pastors. Why not? Because it undermines their authority for people to think that their pastor struggles with the same sins they do. This is a perfect example of "authority" coming between people. In order to keep their authority, they must show a different face to their congregation than they do to their group of pastor-friends. When they should be concentrating on building relationships (loving your neighbor as yourself), they concentrate on saving face.
People call pastors "shepherds" and the congregation "sheep." But really, isn't the pastor just another sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd? You can't have equality between people when one of them is constantly set up above the other as a spiritual authority. It's one thing if they take turns: If I go to another congregant and ask for counsel, then for that moment she has spiritual authority over me... but at the same time we're still peers, in that I can choose whether to follow her advice or not. AND by the end of the conversation we're back to being peers again. And then she might need counsel from me.
If I go to the pastor for counsel, I go as a supplicant, someone who is constantly "lower" than he is. His advice has the ring of authority to it, and there's usually a strong undercurrent of "you must do *this* to be in the will of God," where the peer would more likely say "you must pray and figure out for yourself how to be in the will of God." And after my counseling session with the pastor, he's still the one in authority over me, and I'm still the supplicant. There's no equality there. He's never going to ask advice from me. There's no submitting one to another there, as Ephesians 5 directs us to do.
Now, a huge part of the church idea of "covering" is also protection, as I mentioned already -- specifically in this case, protection from spiritual error. Yes, the pastor's word will carry the ring of authority, because he wants me to follow his advice and wants to protect me from error...
But isn't it the Holy Spirit's job to protect us from error? And if I have this man, even as a pastor, as a "covering" -- an intermediary between me and God -- it seems as if he is trying to do too much. He's trying to do God's job. If God wants to teach me something that our pastor's ordaining denomination does not believe, then the pastor would actually be protecting me FROM GOD, wouldn't he? (And yes, there are a few issues where I suspect this is the case)
I do agree that we need teachers of the scriptures, yes. But do we need one person who is constantly in authority over us, who can't allow himself to be real with us, and who essentially comes between us and God? Whether it's authority, protection, or whatever, his "umbrella" is still between us and God.
The more I think about it, the more the concept of "covering" seems like
a) control, as in wanting to keep control of the congregation and what is taught and all, and...
b) fear and lack of trust in God -- that God won't be able to correct any possible errors that may crop up.
I see it at our church -- our pastor and his wife are very, very busy people, because they have so many ministries going on. However, they don't delegate as much as they should, because they want to stay in control of what's going on -- and they call it keeping us under their "covering."
Disclaimer: No, I'm not bashing pastors in any way; I know they work hard and can get burned out and most of them do a great job. I'm just complaining about the concept of "covering" that some of them teach. All too often I've heard people use that word when it really meant "control."
(The Baptist church I grew up in called it "male leadership" and was a lot more subtle about it... but there still weren't any women heading up any church ministries.)
It seems as if I am embarking on wilderness journey here, questioning things I've been taught by one church or another. The doctrine of "covering" just strikes me as wrong, in the sense that I've been taught by our pastor and his wife. It's like saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough; we still need go-betweens, between us and Jesus.
And here I thought the curtain of the holiest of holies had been torn all down the middle -- it really seems as though the "covering" people want to sew it back up again. Whether the covering is supposed to be the husband, for a woman, or the church/pastor/elders, for the husband -- they still get between us and Jesus.
I've also heard it taught (I think I've mentioned this before) that they view it as protection, to help protect you spiritually from demons, from false doctrine, etc. Well, for many many people what it actually protects them from is directly experiencing God's grace and presence!
I have the Holy Spirit inside, to protect me from false doctrine... I have the authority of Jesus' blood to protect me from demons (and again, the Holy Spirit to help with discerning them)... and I don't need anything getting in the way of my access to God.
Covering is starting to sound like a euphemism for "control" to me.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the Holy spirit should be the only one in control.
Last summer they did a whole big video series, 3 months' worth, called "Under Cover" by John Bevere. The whole point of it was all about respecting the authority which God has placed over you -- which is all right and good -- but then he said that the church (read: pastor) is the principle authority that God has placed over you.
He said that pastors should be obeyed; the example our pastor came up with was that if he asked all the men to wear Hawaiian shirts to church on Sundays, and they didn't have a spiritual, Biblical reason not to, then they should all wear them. Because he, the pastor, was placed in authority over us, and we owed him our respect and to a certain extent, our obedience.
To me, that smacks of cultism, to be quite honest.
Whatever happened to God's being our authority?
Another thing: I know several pastors and their wives in real life, and they all say that they can't have real, deep, open friendships with people in their congregation. They can't "confess their sins one to another" unless the "one another" is a bunch of other pastors. Why not? Because it undermines their authority for people to think that their pastor struggles with the same sins they do. This is a perfect example of "authority" coming between people. In order to keep their authority, they must show a different face to their congregation than they do to their group of pastor-friends. When they should be concentrating on building relationships (loving your neighbor as yourself), they concentrate on saving face.
People call pastors "shepherds" and the congregation "sheep." But really, isn't the pastor just another sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd? You can't have equality between people when one of them is constantly set up above the other as a spiritual authority. It's one thing if they take turns: If I go to another congregant and ask for counsel, then for that moment she has spiritual authority over me... but at the same time we're still peers, in that I can choose whether to follow her advice or not. AND by the end of the conversation we're back to being peers again. And then she might need counsel from me.
If I go to the pastor for counsel, I go as a supplicant, someone who is constantly "lower" than he is. His advice has the ring of authority to it, and there's usually a strong undercurrent of "you must do *this* to be in the will of God," where the peer would more likely say "you must pray and figure out for yourself how to be in the will of God." And after my counseling session with the pastor, he's still the one in authority over me, and I'm still the supplicant. There's no equality there. He's never going to ask advice from me. There's no submitting one to another there, as Ephesians 5 directs us to do.
Now, a huge part of the church idea of "covering" is also protection, as I mentioned already -- specifically in this case, protection from spiritual error. Yes, the pastor's word will carry the ring of authority, because he wants me to follow his advice and wants to protect me from error...
But isn't it the Holy Spirit's job to protect us from error? And if I have this man, even as a pastor, as a "covering" -- an intermediary between me and God -- it seems as if he is trying to do too much. He's trying to do God's job. If God wants to teach me something that our pastor's ordaining denomination does not believe, then the pastor would actually be protecting me FROM GOD, wouldn't he? (And yes, there are a few issues where I suspect this is the case)
I do agree that we need teachers of the scriptures, yes. But do we need one person who is constantly in authority over us, who can't allow himself to be real with us, and who essentially comes between us and God? Whether it's authority, protection, or whatever, his "umbrella" is still between us and God.
The more I think about it, the more the concept of "covering" seems like
a) control, as in wanting to keep control of the congregation and what is taught and all, and...
b) fear and lack of trust in God -- that God won't be able to correct any possible errors that may crop up.
I see it at our church -- our pastor and his wife are very, very busy people, because they have so many ministries going on. However, they don't delegate as much as they should, because they want to stay in control of what's going on -- and they call it keeping us under their "covering."
Disclaimer: No, I'm not bashing pastors in any way; I know they work hard and can get burned out and most of them do a great job. I'm just complaining about the concept of "covering" that some of them teach. All too often I've heard people use that word when it really meant "control."
(The Baptist church I grew up in called it "male leadership" and was a lot more subtle about it... but there still weren't any women heading up any church ministries.)
It seems as if I am embarking on wilderness journey here, questioning things I've been taught by one church or another. The doctrine of "covering" just strikes me as wrong, in the sense that I've been taught by our pastor and his wife. It's like saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough; we still need go-betweens, between us and Jesus.
And here I thought the curtain of the holiest of holies had been torn all down the middle -- it really seems as though the "covering" people want to sew it back up again. Whether the covering is supposed to be the husband, for a woman, or the church/pastor/elders, for the husband -- they still get between us and Jesus.
I've also heard it taught (I think I've mentioned this before) that they view it as protection, to help protect you spiritually from demons, from false doctrine, etc. Well, for many many people what it actually protects them from is directly experiencing God's grace and presence!
I have the Holy Spirit inside, to protect me from false doctrine... I have the authority of Jesus' blood to protect me from demons (and again, the Holy Spirit to help with discerning them)... and I don't need anything getting in the way of my access to God.
Covering is starting to sound like a euphemism for "control" to me.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the Holy spirit should be the only one in control.
I Have Ceased Being a Regular Churchgoer
This isn't a blog full of complaints about my church, because in all honesty I don't think that particular church, or pastor, or whatever is the problem. It's more that I've pretty much had it with the traditional "sing a while, have announcements, sing some more, have a testimony, sing some more and take the offering, and then sit down and listen to a 40 minute sermon about things that have nothing to do with what you face on a daily basis" angle of church. Where's the participation? Where's the connection? Where's the interaction, the sharing, the serving that the New Testament talks about?
We haven't stopped attending completely; we make it maybe every 3rd week or so. But it's more and more of a chore, and it's just basically so we can squeeze in a few minutes with our friends that we don't get to see during the week. And a new church is not the answer. In talking about it we don't think changing churches is going to help. Grey mentioned elsewhere that the traditional church in the pointy building just isn't working for us anymore. And our church meetingplace isn't even pointy! Mind you, they want to build a pointy one, which is part of the reason we're not happy there. When a church gets big enough to need another building, it is NOT time to build a bigger building. It's time to plant a new church! Honestly, I think it's more a point of pride with pastors, to have a bigger church, than it is a thing of them being better able to serve their congregation. Pride and control -- I've seen that in almost every church I've been in. There may be a possible exception with our current one -- I don't know if our pastor is prideful or a control freak (though I know his wife is) -- but if not, he's definitely misguided.
And when's the last time you pointed out a doctrinal error to a church pastor and he changed his mind? Nope. Doesn't happen. For the most part, they believe in whatever they were taught at Bible college, and if you disagree it's because you have it wrong. There are some who will listen to you and study it out for themselves (the pastor of the small non-denom we attended for a year, for example -- he ended up disagreeing with me, but I deeply respect the fact that he studied it for himself. He did end up in a different place from where he had begun, at any rate!). But mostly they'll just tune you out. Listening means they have to think, and most people don't seem to like to think for themselves whether they pastor a church or not.
Then again, I've also been thinking and reading about how un-Biblical the position of pastor is, too -- at least, the idea of "pastor" that we have: the man who leads the church and who preaches every week. Show me that in scripture, eh? And then tell me where it says the pastor is any more important to the function of a church body than the prophet, or the teacher, or the helper? But that's another blog for another time.
Some friends have mentioned the house-church idea, and honestly I think I'm leaning in that direction -- but there again, how do you track down a group of people who only know about it by word-of-mouth? And more to the point, how do you know it's not one of those creepy cultish groups that wears headcoverings and don't allow the women to speak? Or that worship Michael Pearl, or that think it's somehow holier to follow Old Testament Laws? (Hm, I wonder just how many of them keep a "menstrual tent" for their women?)
(Or maybe they just WISH they did!)
After the disappointment of my aunt's JW "memorial service" (which was about 3 minutes of the minister talking about her, and about 42 minutes of him explaining JW doctrine about death), I reached a real low point with religion. Basically, I've had it with religion. I don't want it anymore. I want a Mike Yaconelli-style "Messy spirituality," that isn't bogged down with what other people think about religion. I want Jesus, but I want Jesus without all the religious crap.
I want to be Jesus to people, to the best of my ability, and if that means never darkening the door of a pointy building again, then I'm all over it.
Seems like frequently, the traditional "church" does more harm than good these days anyway. We have to figure out a way to relate to the "unchurched" people -- like Jesus did! -- or else we're going to be useless in the new century. Worse than useless -- damaging.
If anyone's interested, here are some book recommendations that'll give you an inkling where I'm coming from:
Messy Spirituality
Who is Your Covering? A Fresh Look at Leadership, Authority, and Accountability
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church
So You Don't Want to go to Church Anymore
Happy reading!
We haven't stopped attending completely; we make it maybe every 3rd week or so. But it's more and more of a chore, and it's just basically so we can squeeze in a few minutes with our friends that we don't get to see during the week. And a new church is not the answer. In talking about it we don't think changing churches is going to help. Grey mentioned elsewhere that the traditional church in the pointy building just isn't working for us anymore. And our church meetingplace isn't even pointy! Mind you, they want to build a pointy one, which is part of the reason we're not happy there. When a church gets big enough to need another building, it is NOT time to build a bigger building. It's time to plant a new church! Honestly, I think it's more a point of pride with pastors, to have a bigger church, than it is a thing of them being better able to serve their congregation. Pride and control -- I've seen that in almost every church I've been in. There may be a possible exception with our current one -- I don't know if our pastor is prideful or a control freak (though I know his wife is) -- but if not, he's definitely misguided.
And when's the last time you pointed out a doctrinal error to a church pastor and he changed his mind? Nope. Doesn't happen. For the most part, they believe in whatever they were taught at Bible college, and if you disagree it's because you have it wrong. There are some who will listen to you and study it out for themselves (the pastor of the small non-denom we attended for a year, for example -- he ended up disagreeing with me, but I deeply respect the fact that he studied it for himself. He did end up in a different place from where he had begun, at any rate!). But mostly they'll just tune you out. Listening means they have to think, and most people don't seem to like to think for themselves whether they pastor a church or not.
Then again, I've also been thinking and reading about how un-Biblical the position of pastor is, too -- at least, the idea of "pastor" that we have: the man who leads the church and who preaches every week. Show me that in scripture, eh? And then tell me where it says the pastor is any more important to the function of a church body than the prophet, or the teacher, or the helper? But that's another blog for another time.
Some friends have mentioned the house-church idea, and honestly I think I'm leaning in that direction -- but there again, how do you track down a group of people who only know about it by word-of-mouth? And more to the point, how do you know it's not one of those creepy cultish groups that wears headcoverings and don't allow the women to speak? Or that worship Michael Pearl, or that think it's somehow holier to follow Old Testament Laws? (Hm, I wonder just how many of them keep a "menstrual tent" for their women?)
(Or maybe they just WISH they did!)
After the disappointment of my aunt's JW "memorial service" (which was about 3 minutes of the minister talking about her, and about 42 minutes of him explaining JW doctrine about death), I reached a real low point with religion. Basically, I've had it with religion. I don't want it anymore. I want a Mike Yaconelli-style "Messy spirituality," that isn't bogged down with what other people think about religion. I want Jesus, but I want Jesus without all the religious crap.
I want to be Jesus to people, to the best of my ability, and if that means never darkening the door of a pointy building again, then I'm all over it.
Seems like frequently, the traditional "church" does more harm than good these days anyway. We have to figure out a way to relate to the "unchurched" people -- like Jesus did! -- or else we're going to be useless in the new century. Worse than useless -- damaging.
If anyone's interested, here are some book recommendations that'll give you an inkling where I'm coming from:
Messy Spirituality
Who is Your Covering? A Fresh Look at Leadership, Authority, and Accountability
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church
So You Don't Want to go to Church Anymore
Happy reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
