I believe Aristotle was correct in describing humans as political animals. The great hypocrisy of our age, especially, in United States, is when politicians accuse each other of being political. Are they claiming their opponents of being human? If those making such accusation are not human, then what are they?
God forbid that such hypocritical finger pointing should occur in the church. The truth of the matter is that such activity occurs in every Christian denomination and in every Christian congregation - wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus name, there will be a argument or a debate as to what Jesus would do if he were present (ignoring the the scriptural claim of his presence being in their midst). Every organization secular or religious is politically organized. They create rules, by-laws, constitutions, and canon laws by which to run the organization they belong to.
John Barton is a theologian and a past professor of Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University. He is the author of an enlightening book called "A History of the Bible." In its introduction he suggests a relevant point regarding church polity, "that though the Bible - seen as a collection of religious texts - is irreplaceable for many reason, Christianity is not in essence a scriptural religion... . There are versions of Christianity that claim to be simply, 'biblical,' but the reality is that the structures and content of Christian belief, even among Christians who believe their faith to be wholly grounded in the Bible, are organized and articulated differently from the contents of the Bible."1
Church polity is supra-scriptural. For instance the canon of Old and New Testaments within Holy Bible are a product of church polity; in that, there was a decision made, somewhere along the historical timeline. as to which writings should or should not be included in the canon. There were plenty of scriptures to choose from, which begs the question, why the particular books that make up the Holy Bible were chosen and not others? In this sense, the authority of the Holy Bible has been subjected to an arguably higher authority of church leaders who decided which writings were in and which writings were out.
Undoubtedly some will utilized the old chestnut that "holy men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit" knew which books to include and which to reject. You can believe that if you want, but it becomes quite obvious after reading the canonical scriptures that the books which were chosen and those which were excluded were determined by the political culture of the time they were selected. The New Testament, in particular, favors the earthly powers at the time of its development, the Roman Empire. The Old Testament were included in the Christian biblical canon because they are believed to give prophetic validation of Jesus being the Messiah.
Church polity, like all politics, is about who is deemed worthy to be in control of the organization. Within Christianity, the hierarchy is based on what forms of governance existed at the time a particular Christian church or denomination was established. In Roman Catholicism we have the Pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priest, and deacons, which reflect the imperial model of the Roman Empire. In Protestant churches we may find bishops, priest, and deacons or presidents, chairmen, ministers/pastor, deacons, titles which also reflect the age such denominations were formed.
Regardless of the title, all denominations possess a hierarchal system. Some denominations are more monarchal in style while others tend to be democratic. In a monarchal hierarchy, like the Roman Church, the laity have little say in how the denomination or the local church is run, in other denominations, bishops, and ministers and their vestries, and board of directors are elected by a congregation which retain control over financial and ministerial duties, in some denominations all decisions are left up to the congregation.
* * *
Church polity not only determines how a church or denomination views scripture, but how it implements its understanding of scripture. Polity is determined by factors beyond scripture; such as, economics and secular (national, state, and local) laws and politics. Trying to implement the teachings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels was not an easy fit in Jesus' day and it remains a difficult fit in today's world. Trying to implement the teachings of Jesus on a national scale or even a local community scale will ultimately lead to division.
Jesus was not being facetious when he said he came to divide a family, how much more a community, a nation, and a world. This is why ecclesial polity finds it difficult to embrace the teachings of Jesus. Thus, they have substituted them with teachings about Jesus, something that was easier to implement as doctrines that can be regulated. The teachings of Jesus are seemingly designed to be enacted on a personal scale. In that sense, no one can really tell the person what those teachings mean for that person except the person, him or herself.
Jesus understood the minimalistic nature of God. He made no personal claim to be God in the Gospels which church polity tends to downplay. Instead Jesus claimed to be a unique child of God, a son who embraced the value of being created in the image of God as the Son of Man, a human formed from the earth and breathed to life as one of a multitude of living creature on our shared planet home.
"Consider the lilies of the fields and the birds of the air," says Jesus. God takes care of all of them, how much more does he care for the rest of us. This amazing claim of Jesus flies past us, just as his teaching his disciples to recognize God as their father in the prayer he taught them. The fact is, if Jesus isn't God, church polity has no authoritative basis for existing because Jesus isn't out to control the world, “My kingdom is not of this world. ... my kingdom is from another place.” John 18:36. The kingdom of the Church, however, is very much of this world despite its mystical claims to be other than that. Denominationalism is proof of the futility of trying to systemize something designed to be enacted on a personal level.
Recently I visited Crazy Horse's Monument in the Black Hills of South Dakota, and read this comment by Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe, "They (Christians) teach us to quarrel about God as Catholics and Protestants do. We do not want to do that. We may quarrel with men sometimes about things on earth, but we never quarrel about the Great Spirit. We do not want to learn that." Chief Joseph strikes me as possessing a true and faithful understanding of God as Spirit. The Great Spirit is as close to us as our next breath. The air we breath connects us to all living creatures. Chief Joseph saw the problem inherent in Church polity. How can one systemize something that defies definition - something that ultimately defines who we are and every other living being?
* * *
The teachings of Jesus describe a kenotic process- a letting go of self for the sake of the other ( i.e. the family, the community, and the world). In other words, it is engaging in God's kenotic creativity of expending self in order to expand the SELF. Generally speaking, the history of church polity has been concerned with the nuts and bolts of church management (i.e. business, wealth, and power) rather than what Jesus taught.
If putting into practice the teachings of Jesus were to become the primary focus of the Church's mission, Christianity would be different and look different. Polity would become less reliant on a hierarchal structure. The liturgy (the work of the people) would be divided amongst the congregational members instead of a priest or pastor.
God seems to like starting small and see things grow. Jesus takes this concept and stresses the importance of the individual within the vastness of creation. Jesus saw what we so often miss, the tree within the forest, the individual within the crowd. As Jesus said, "Whoever does this to the least of my brethren, does it to me." (Matthew 25:40).
In Jesus' teaching that where two or three who have gathered in his name (Matthew 18:16), polity disintegrates. This is where Jesus' teachings becomes so radical and hard to comprehend, because the value of the one is what a community should be concerned about. Every one has worth. Every one counts. This stands in stark contrast to the worldly political thinking of Caiaphas who saw the one as expendable when it came to saving the community, as it also stands in stark contrast to every religious war fought in the name of Christ or God.
What comes to mind in Jesus' teachings is the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15); where the shepherd leaves ninety-nine sheep to search for the one lost sheep. In a practical sense, doing so doesn't make sense, why risk putting at risk ninety-nine other sheep just to look for one lost sheep? Is Jesus' sense of value and a polity driven by concern for the one tenable? Based on the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of the New Testament, and the history of the Christian Church, it is not and has not been tenable for any period of time. Polity is not based on Jesus' teachings. In a sense, Jesus comes across as a religious (political) anarchist. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's" is hardly an affirmation of the importance of politics in a religion.
Polity, in a given church setting, should be geared toward discernment, soul-searching (prayer). Politics cannot be fully side-stepped, but it can be defined by the teachings of Jesus rather than by a set of canon laws or by-laws which people may need for a time, but which after a time may need realignment to the teachings of Jesus. Each age, each location, and each local church have their particular needs and peculiar practices that defy regimentation. The smaller the church, the less political it need be. Where polity becomes a problem is when the larger denomination imposes rules and mandates that the local church does not have a need for - issues that are divisive in the larger world can become a death warrant for a small congregation that is cohesive in its love and worship of God if changes are mandated without discernment, soul-searching, and consensus.
* * *
Meeting the needs of the larger the denomination and the smaller local congregation requires careful balancing on the subject of what constitutes a necessity in each case. For example, does as small church need a priest to carry out sacramental practices? Why not allow such a congregation the ability to carry on a sacramental life of its own, with supporting guidance from the larger denomination? Why financially burden a small congregation to the point of risking the loss of their church? Denominational polity generally doesn't care - not really. Better to lose a church building then to spend money trying to make it a viable place for worship.
Place is an important part of a congregation's life and livelihood. If a congregation loses its place of worship, the congregation has a greater likelihood of ceasing to exist. Instead of making a congregation homeless, efforts should be made to prioritize what a congregation needs in order to keep its church or exist without one. Congregations may age out, but as long as there is a membership that can afford the upkeep of its house of worship, accommodations should be made to make the congregation self-sufficient in carrying out its sacramental life and worship for as long as possible.
Unless there is a change in the polity in mainline denominations, the smaller congregation will disappear. Interest in Christianity, itself, will eventually dwindle. There is a serious need for Christian churches to reevaluate the relevance of their teachings and their practices in the light of world we live in today. Recalibrating Christianity is a necessity for its survival as a meaningful resource to guide the faithful through the complexities of a changing world being shaped by a better understanding of its history, its science, and human existence.
Norm
1.John Barton, "A History of the Bible - the Book and Its Faiths," Penguin Books, Copyright 2019 John Barton Pg.3 & 4,
No comments:
Post a Comment