This is something I have been working on for a while, and will, I am sure, prompt a number of posts over time. The problem I have is that the church system as it currently is doesn't work. I have a "vision" if you want about how the church might organise itself - not as a definitive new pattern, just as a starting point. A place for discussion, a suggestion for alternatives.
The core problem with the existing church think is, it seems, the hierarchical structure that is present in every church I have experienced. What is more, it is a patriarchal hierarchy, even when there are women in the structure. By this, I mean that the structure is one of power and control, not of support and enabling. It is about keeping people in line, rather than about making things happen, allowing people to explore and grow.
The problem is that the only response taken is for the leaders to "allow" more exploratory work and ideas to happen. This can produce some good results, but it doesn't address the core problem. I should not have to get "permission" to try things out, to explore new directions. What I want from leadership is not control, but support. I don;t want to be told what to believe or do, I want to be provided with the support and help to explore my own journey, because only I can actually find the right path for me.
This does not mean that I want anything that I happen to enjoy to be considered my "Christian" journey. I have a responsibility, if I am going to call my walk "Christian" to engage with the rest of Christianity and find my way within this. But that gives me the whole of worldwide and historical Christendom to explore, not the particular small aspect of it that the leadership of a church happen to know and support.
Just to make this clear, even when I have been in church leadership, I would include myself in this. While I might have a wider and more tolerant range of understanding and knowledge than some, I would still not wish to limit someone elses spiritual journey to something that I have met, can understand or support.
In the end, the point is that everyones spiritual journey is different. Any sense of control will tend to limit people to have a particular direction and focus to their journey, to ensure that all those under one control will have certain directions, certain emphases. Many people will accept this, because it is the cost of belonging.
This is where I differ, because I believe that an individuals spiritual journey is paramount. The church, in any form, should be there to help peoples journeys, not to define them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Two points:
ReplyDelete1. Time to try the Quakers
2. Control may be a symptom of things being wrong rather than a cause. When life is tricky the world seems to split into two responses. Firstly there are those who cope by getting involved in trying to fix it, for them having control is important, as they feel that then they can fix things. The other lot instead step back, they withdraw, remove themselves from responsibility, for then if things do go wrong it is not their fault. The result is when things get uncertain, some people want more and more power and others want to give them more and more power. If you want more I can reference the research papers.
While I have a lot of respect for the Quakers, I suspect that they also suffer similar problems, although it may be less overt or obvious. It MAY be that they avoid it, in which case, good on them.
DeleteI understand your points about control being a symptom, not a cause. The thing is, is is still control. It is easy to excuse control and abuse by explaining that it has causes and reasons, but it is still control and abuse. I suspect the causes are the impossibility of doing the job of a pastor.