More Problems at Church
I just have a few things to say: ". . . the greatest among you shall be the servant of all." I think that they missed this one in the various attempts made by people who are trying to threaten, manipulate, and flatter people who are in disagreement with the Elders. I feel very disturbed when I am labeled as rebellious because I disagree with their theological presuppositions. I don't particularly want to leave the body, but these people spread hatred and anger and trive on retorical attacks based on poor theology and non-existant exegetical insights.
Since when did Christ allow ANYONE in his body to practice worldly domination? Well, it does happen, but I do not understand how people can believe that Christian leadership should practice a type of coersion that is considered shameful even in the outside world (America). Instead of being shepherds who lead, they are trying to force the sheep to go where they want them by kicking them. Now, I've kicked my share of sheep but 1. I am not a shepherd and 2. those were real sheep, not metaphorical sheep who stand for the body of Christ. I just don't get it: how can anyone think that it is okay to weild power in a kingdom where the king ran away from the authoritarian crown?
But, just for a minute, let's just say that the word authority, as it is applied to eldership, means absolute rule over the church. If authority means right to dominate and dictate all actions or behaviors in the church, then the church should follow every "law" passed by the eldership, support every theological leaning and not question any decision. History, though, teaches us that elders are not always good people. In fact, there have been many evil people who supported many evil actions who have been leaders of the church. Some leaders supported the murder of other Christians whom they believed to be heritics, others supported the inquisition and still others the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong, this is no Holocaust, but a view of eldership that removes accountability from the equation is what led to these tragic, selfish, stupid decisions.
If I believed in that type of authority among members of the body of Christ, authority which is worldly, not Godly, I would have to be a Catholic (or an Orthadox believer), since belief in that type of authority condemns every disagreement which contributed to the Protestant movement. Moreover, had I lived in some of the times and places in which my ancestors lived, I would have had to stand with the Pope, since he was elected by the leadership of the church, and support the inquisition, and, in fact, I would not be able to even disagree (since this eldership allows and supports calling disagreement rebellion) with the torture and the murder of innocents.
Hmmmm . . . NOPE! I cannot, in good conscience, sit by and be a good little drone when such a dangerous belief is being pushed by people who are seeking power. Let me revise that a little, I refuse to accept ungodly use of power in God's kingdom by people . . . hold on, we all know that there is most likely only one power-hungery person behind this whole thing, the others are being manipulated by him using their pride and their (good) desire to improve the church . . . a person, who is acting in a very questionable manner.
Frankly, the villainization of those who feel that it is okay to disagree with the eldership is the only practical reason that I am not pushing people to stay. If persecution takes place in the world, the light of Jesus shines to the world; if persecution takes place in the church, the light of is darkened in the eyes of the non-christian and uncommitted God-Fearer. Maybe that is why, (according to Schulz, Death of the Church, I think) churches that split are more likely to become healthy, both in number and in quality of spiritual life, than churches that have bitter rivalries that are unresolved. As Stan Granberg once said, "We need to change out terminology: instead of calling it division, we need to start calling it multiplication." I wish for a church in which problems are resolved reasonably, but I accept that God uses even this worst failing for good . . . even when it is born of evil.
Since when did Christ allow ANYONE in his body to practice worldly domination? Well, it does happen, but I do not understand how people can believe that Christian leadership should practice a type of coersion that is considered shameful even in the outside world (America). Instead of being shepherds who lead, they are trying to force the sheep to go where they want them by kicking them. Now, I've kicked my share of sheep but 1. I am not a shepherd and 2. those were real sheep, not metaphorical sheep who stand for the body of Christ. I just don't get it: how can anyone think that it is okay to weild power in a kingdom where the king ran away from the authoritarian crown?
But, just for a minute, let's just say that the word authority, as it is applied to eldership, means absolute rule over the church. If authority means right to dominate and dictate all actions or behaviors in the church, then the church should follow every "law" passed by the eldership, support every theological leaning and not question any decision. History, though, teaches us that elders are not always good people. In fact, there have been many evil people who supported many evil actions who have been leaders of the church. Some leaders supported the murder of other Christians whom they believed to be heritics, others supported the inquisition and still others the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong, this is no Holocaust, but a view of eldership that removes accountability from the equation is what led to these tragic, selfish, stupid decisions.
If I believed in that type of authority among members of the body of Christ, authority which is worldly, not Godly, I would have to be a Catholic (or an Orthadox believer), since belief in that type of authority condemns every disagreement which contributed to the Protestant movement. Moreover, had I lived in some of the times and places in which my ancestors lived, I would have had to stand with the Pope, since he was elected by the leadership of the church, and support the inquisition, and, in fact, I would not be able to even disagree (since this eldership allows and supports calling disagreement rebellion) with the torture and the murder of innocents.
Hmmmm . . . NOPE! I cannot, in good conscience, sit by and be a good little drone when such a dangerous belief is being pushed by people who are seeking power. Let me revise that a little, I refuse to accept ungodly use of power in God's kingdom by people . . . hold on, we all know that there is most likely only one power-hungery person behind this whole thing, the others are being manipulated by him using their pride and their (good) desire to improve the church . . . a person, who is acting in a very questionable manner.
Frankly, the villainization of those who feel that it is okay to disagree with the eldership is the only practical reason that I am not pushing people to stay. If persecution takes place in the world, the light of Jesus shines to the world; if persecution takes place in the church, the light of is darkened in the eyes of the non-christian and uncommitted God-Fearer. Maybe that is why, (according to Schulz, Death of the Church, I think) churches that split are more likely to become healthy, both in number and in quality of spiritual life, than churches that have bitter rivalries that are unresolved. As Stan Granberg once said, "We need to change out terminology: instead of calling it division, we need to start calling it multiplication." I wish for a church in which problems are resolved reasonably, but I accept that God uses even this worst failing for good . . . even when it is born of evil.
posted by Unknown at
1:14 AM
12 Comments
