Also, here’s a song from my own church community that resonates with your thoughts in this post. I shared it this week bc of its relevance for Pentecost:
This is really cool. I LOVE the idea of communities creating worship practices and music together if they are able. Having the community speak into and create the ways they draw near to God together is such a valuable practice. I know of several communities that do that, but not too many that do that regularly or revisit those things often. Very encouraging to see interpersonal reciprocity and humility woven into worship songs--it reflects the relational component of how we worship together by being community/family. Thanks heaps for sharing this!
Thanks again Matt. You are pointing to a core issue here. Although in my immediate church context - which you know well - we are struggling with somewhat different issues from the ones you are pointing to, the heart of the matter remains the same. You most often describe problems arising from a distorted and deeply embedded cultural evangelical ecclesiology; particularly in a North American context, I think you are pretty accurate. Here (in Scotland, for other readers) the problems arise more from an over institutionalised organisation, having lost its understanding of its own nature and purposes, and with most of its residual institutional stakeholders having, often unremarked, each their own tacit vested interests. The result is that the struggle to be church - church, that is, as the local family of Jesus' followers; the local colony of the Kingdom of God - takes, often, a different shape. But at heart it is the same process; a turning away from the frequently abusive power struggles and the desperate attempts at reorganisation, back to the very core nature of church - a disparate group of individuals learning to be in relation to each other (Wolf: After our likeness- the Church as the image of the Trinity). Learning to support, encourage, challenge, and value each other in the tasks of being and becoming the hermeneutic of the Gospel (Newbiggen) in our own places. A calling which is often messy, but always good. Keep pushing, brother!
Thanks Cameron. True, a lot of the problems I describe are common in American evangelicalism, but whatever fuels that beast has made its way into a place or two in New Zealand and Australia as well. I do miss our B@T gatherings, as Christa and I often remarked they felt more like family than many places we’d been. Definitely interesting to consider the issues you describe facing many churches in Scotland, and presumably the wider UK.
I’m hopeful that returning to relating as family can go far in solving a lot of the church’s problems. And I recognise, at the same time, that the growth of the church over the years, along with its spread to many other cultures and places presents some obstacles to what we believe and how we live. But I love what you describe in being the church in our various places. The church will look a bit different from place to place, but I think that’s where being family is so critical. Relating that way allows the Spirit to move in and among us, reaching the communities around us in unique ways as we all walk in our gifts and callings. But that’s hard to do the more we institutionalise and silo ourselves off.
Always, always appreciate your engagement and encouragement!
I have been sharing about the 59 one another commands, esp LOVE ONE ANOTHER, the new command JESUS gave us (multiple times) on the night before He was crucified....
there is a systemic shift going on, but those who benefit from the status quo of power (hierarchy & titles) are resisting that shift...
Thanks Bev. I've often focussed on the one-anothers myself, as they tend not to get the emphasis they deserve--and there are so many of them! And while I am inclined to agree that there is far too much emphasis on power and authority, I do think most people who have it aren't resistant as much as they are unaware of the problem and/or uncertain of how to change it. Though, there are definitely some who wield that power and cling to it.
Often, when I bring up these sorts of points in conversation, people bring up a few quick (and I think, rather un-inspired) rebuttals:
1) "You can't have leaderless communities." Leader, in this sense, is usually someone who has and exercises authority to make decisions about vision, direction, teaching/doctrine, etc. It's assumed that a veto or "trump card" is necessary to keep false teaching out, settle disagreements, enhance efficiency, etc. I had a conversation with a denominational leader recently who used this line of reasoning and warned that cults could easily emerge if there wasn't a qualified leader (who presumably had the authority) to protect the community. While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd argue that most cults exist because of their leaders. Leadership, however, is a gift of the Spirit. It's clearly listed as part of the body of Christ. Though, what προΐστημι means in Romans 12, specifically, is debatable, I think the rest of the NT makes it clear that authority-over is incongruent with the family of Christ. Leadership without authority can exist, and I think it can be done in a way that is dignifying (if it's done in plurality, if it's permeable and open to the wider community to grow into, and if it's transparent, to name a few).
2) "I completely agree with you! But..." I hear this a lot, especially in my Baptist contexts. We agree in principle that Christ-centered community exists (or should), that everyone is a priest, that we are all family, and that people don't have authority over one another. So, people will be quick to agree, but practically churches don't usually function that way. The pastor still makes most decisions, casts vision, has power and authority (even if he/she is not a tyrant), and the body is largely passive in those communities. Most communities have a paid pastoral role, and someone is tasked with dedicating more time to the church than others, so this skews expectations and value perceptions of certain individuals compared to the rest. The "but" in their response is often unstated and unaddressed. In practice, however, there's significant dissonance.
3) "The church isn't ready for/doesn't want this." Sometimes leadership speaks for the broader church here, saying people don't want this in their church. It can be that leadership doesn't actually want this because of reasons you stated above. It can also be that the broader community doesn't rightly see themselves as equally-valued priests and saints alongside those who currently lead. They see someone called "leader" or "pastor" and think there is less room for them to serve as a result. And they are often right, unfortunately.
There are other potential reasons too, but I'm hoping the Spirit inspires the church more to live and act as family, to dignify each member and move beyond the current leadership models we have in many churches. There is a lot of latitude for what that could look like, and I am hoping that we, as a broader church (but definitely in our local gatherings) become more creative and courageous in how we do church. Relating to one another as siblings, like how Jesus and the NT writers lay out, is the best place to start, I think.
Apologies for the long response, but I really appreciate your engagement here. Keep sharing about those one-anothers!
wow Matt, thank you for your thorough & thoughtful response... very insightful... deeply resonates with my journey...
I wonder if different denoms value authority differently dependent on the cultural context/bent of each... from my experience, authority seems to be a very significant dynamic in reformed/presb traditions... & just now reading & copying from Cameron's comment, reformed/Presb traditions tend toward an "over institutionalised organization" which seem to place a premium on authority which ends up with "frequently abusive power struggles"!!!
Yeah, Cameron’s point that I describe a specific cultural expression of the church is correct. Authority matters a lot to evangelicals. But in many other denominations, it’s often far more vocalised and institutionalised. One of the issues I have with my context is we often say we don’t have interpersonal authority, yet in practice it’s all over the place. In many denominations, it’s more clearly articulated as well. There’s often accountability (at least in theory) embedded in the hierarchy, but I still think that sort of structure is not what Jesus and the NT writers had in mind. I recognise that comes against a long standing history that involves a lot of people who also love Jesus.
So, I could be wrong, but either way, I am convinced relating as family (without hierarchy and without authority over one another) is far more dignifying to the whole congregation. And I think, whatever my errors are, that sort of family is the better way.
I'm convinced with you Matt... the more I pray, ponder & process asking God to help me deconstruct deception/consume dross & reconstruct God's principles/refine gold, the more I am convinced that authoritarian & patriarchal traditions of man/elders (Matt 15/Mark 7/Col 2:8) have biased the systemic structures of the institutional church/denoms, literally nullifying some of the "one anothers" in God's word. ie "teach/instruct one another"... not gender specific!!! in fact the context of Rom 16 includes a list of about 15 men AND 7-10 women!
so for now, I will share just two examples of Greek words that tradition seems to have biased over the ages...
ie hupotasso... in English this Greek word has traditionally been tx as "submit" (ie Eph 5:21-22) which is the military meaning/context... the NON military meaning is a more mutual, collaborative & cooperative sharing of burdens & responsibilities... we have almost completely lost that understanding over time somehow... see link below for definitions #1-6 that are all military context, however the meaning is differentiated in the description below the traditional meanings... https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotasso.html
ie episkope' in 1 Tim 3:1 which authoritarian/patriarchal & episcopalians have had a hay day with... it is meant to be about people caring for one another, meeting the needs of those around them that are suffering & struggling... it has become hierarchy (overseer) of titles & power (bishop) particularly for men per the KJVs even though the Greek means ANYONE!
I believe a better translation is "caregiver"... the care is with & among the suffering/struggling, not over, & it can be ANYONE (male or female) who sees someone in need & gives appropriate care to meet those needs... I get this understanding from this...
BOQ... properly, oversight that naturally goes on to provide the care and attention appropriate to the "personal visitation." EOQ excerpt from: https://biblehub.com/greek/1984.htm
I disagree with the "over"... & instead you are ON SITE (aka visiting) with inSIGHT so you see the needs & take care of them in ways that match the need & help bring healing... this seems to be more in alignment with God's commmands/relational principles of "one another"...
Hebr 13:17 is another verse w authoritarian red flags, but that's it for now, or it will become a firehose ;)
This is superb! I’m very much looking forward to the coming posts in this series…
Thanks for the comment! I have actually completed this series (https://mattmckirland.substack.com/t/christ-centered-community) if you want to read more of my thoughts on Christ-centered community.
Awesome! I look forward to reading the full series. (Obviously, I didn't look carefully at the date... LOL!) Thanks for alerting me to this...
Also, here’s a song from my own church community that resonates with your thoughts in this post. I shared it this week bc of its relevance for Pentecost:
https://theconversationallife.substack.com/p/song-of-the-week-we-belong-amber
This is really cool. I LOVE the idea of communities creating worship practices and music together if they are able. Having the community speak into and create the ways they draw near to God together is such a valuable practice. I know of several communities that do that, but not too many that do that regularly or revisit those things often. Very encouraging to see interpersonal reciprocity and humility woven into worship songs--it reflects the relational component of how we worship together by being community/family. Thanks heaps for sharing this!
Thanks again Matt. You are pointing to a core issue here. Although in my immediate church context - which you know well - we are struggling with somewhat different issues from the ones you are pointing to, the heart of the matter remains the same. You most often describe problems arising from a distorted and deeply embedded cultural evangelical ecclesiology; particularly in a North American context, I think you are pretty accurate. Here (in Scotland, for other readers) the problems arise more from an over institutionalised organisation, having lost its understanding of its own nature and purposes, and with most of its residual institutional stakeholders having, often unremarked, each their own tacit vested interests. The result is that the struggle to be church - church, that is, as the local family of Jesus' followers; the local colony of the Kingdom of God - takes, often, a different shape. But at heart it is the same process; a turning away from the frequently abusive power struggles and the desperate attempts at reorganisation, back to the very core nature of church - a disparate group of individuals learning to be in relation to each other (Wolf: After our likeness- the Church as the image of the Trinity). Learning to support, encourage, challenge, and value each other in the tasks of being and becoming the hermeneutic of the Gospel (Newbiggen) in our own places. A calling which is often messy, but always good. Keep pushing, brother!
Thanks Cameron. True, a lot of the problems I describe are common in American evangelicalism, but whatever fuels that beast has made its way into a place or two in New Zealand and Australia as well. I do miss our B@T gatherings, as Christa and I often remarked they felt more like family than many places we’d been. Definitely interesting to consider the issues you describe facing many churches in Scotland, and presumably the wider UK.
I’m hopeful that returning to relating as family can go far in solving a lot of the church’s problems. And I recognise, at the same time, that the growth of the church over the years, along with its spread to many other cultures and places presents some obstacles to what we believe and how we live. But I love what you describe in being the church in our various places. The church will look a bit different from place to place, but I think that’s where being family is so critical. Relating that way allows the Spirit to move in and among us, reaching the communities around us in unique ways as we all walk in our gifts and callings. But that’s hard to do the more we institutionalise and silo ourselves off.
Always, always appreciate your engagement and encouragement!
Thank you Matt... very confirming...
I have been sharing about the 59 one another commands, esp LOVE ONE ANOTHER, the new command JESUS gave us (multiple times) on the night before He was crucified....
there is a systemic shift going on, but those who benefit from the status quo of power (hierarchy & titles) are resisting that shift...
Thanks Bev. I've often focussed on the one-anothers myself, as they tend not to get the emphasis they deserve--and there are so many of them! And while I am inclined to agree that there is far too much emphasis on power and authority, I do think most people who have it aren't resistant as much as they are unaware of the problem and/or uncertain of how to change it. Though, there are definitely some who wield that power and cling to it.
Often, when I bring up these sorts of points in conversation, people bring up a few quick (and I think, rather un-inspired) rebuttals:
1) "You can't have leaderless communities." Leader, in this sense, is usually someone who has and exercises authority to make decisions about vision, direction, teaching/doctrine, etc. It's assumed that a veto or "trump card" is necessary to keep false teaching out, settle disagreements, enhance efficiency, etc. I had a conversation with a denominational leader recently who used this line of reasoning and warned that cults could easily emerge if there wasn't a qualified leader (who presumably had the authority) to protect the community. While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd argue that most cults exist because of their leaders. Leadership, however, is a gift of the Spirit. It's clearly listed as part of the body of Christ. Though, what προΐστημι means in Romans 12, specifically, is debatable, I think the rest of the NT makes it clear that authority-over is incongruent with the family of Christ. Leadership without authority can exist, and I think it can be done in a way that is dignifying (if it's done in plurality, if it's permeable and open to the wider community to grow into, and if it's transparent, to name a few).
2) "I completely agree with you! But..." I hear this a lot, especially in my Baptist contexts. We agree in principle that Christ-centered community exists (or should), that everyone is a priest, that we are all family, and that people don't have authority over one another. So, people will be quick to agree, but practically churches don't usually function that way. The pastor still makes most decisions, casts vision, has power and authority (even if he/she is not a tyrant), and the body is largely passive in those communities. Most communities have a paid pastoral role, and someone is tasked with dedicating more time to the church than others, so this skews expectations and value perceptions of certain individuals compared to the rest. The "but" in their response is often unstated and unaddressed. In practice, however, there's significant dissonance.
3) "The church isn't ready for/doesn't want this." Sometimes leadership speaks for the broader church here, saying people don't want this in their church. It can be that leadership doesn't actually want this because of reasons you stated above. It can also be that the broader community doesn't rightly see themselves as equally-valued priests and saints alongside those who currently lead. They see someone called "leader" or "pastor" and think there is less room for them to serve as a result. And they are often right, unfortunately.
There are other potential reasons too, but I'm hoping the Spirit inspires the church more to live and act as family, to dignify each member and move beyond the current leadership models we have in many churches. There is a lot of latitude for what that could look like, and I am hoping that we, as a broader church (but definitely in our local gatherings) become more creative and courageous in how we do church. Relating to one another as siblings, like how Jesus and the NT writers lay out, is the best place to start, I think.
Apologies for the long response, but I really appreciate your engagement here. Keep sharing about those one-anothers!
ps... no apologies needed here for length ;) I love it! but I get it, I have to watch myself as I tend to be a firehose...
wow Matt, thank you for your thorough & thoughtful response... very insightful... deeply resonates with my journey...
I wonder if different denoms value authority differently dependent on the cultural context/bent of each... from my experience, authority seems to be a very significant dynamic in reformed/presb traditions... & just now reading & copying from Cameron's comment, reformed/Presb traditions tend toward an "over institutionalised organization" which seem to place a premium on authority which ends up with "frequently abusive power struggles"!!!
Yeah, Cameron’s point that I describe a specific cultural expression of the church is correct. Authority matters a lot to evangelicals. But in many other denominations, it’s often far more vocalised and institutionalised. One of the issues I have with my context is we often say we don’t have interpersonal authority, yet in practice it’s all over the place. In many denominations, it’s more clearly articulated as well. There’s often accountability (at least in theory) embedded in the hierarchy, but I still think that sort of structure is not what Jesus and the NT writers had in mind. I recognise that comes against a long standing history that involves a lot of people who also love Jesus.
So, I could be wrong, but either way, I am convinced relating as family (without hierarchy and without authority over one another) is far more dignifying to the whole congregation. And I think, whatever my errors are, that sort of family is the better way.
I'm convinced with you Matt... the more I pray, ponder & process asking God to help me deconstruct deception/consume dross & reconstruct God's principles/refine gold, the more I am convinced that authoritarian & patriarchal traditions of man/elders (Matt 15/Mark 7/Col 2:8) have biased the systemic structures of the institutional church/denoms, literally nullifying some of the "one anothers" in God's word. ie "teach/instruct one another"... not gender specific!!! in fact the context of Rom 16 includes a list of about 15 men AND 7-10 women!
so for now, I will share just two examples of Greek words that tradition seems to have biased over the ages...
ie hupotasso... in English this Greek word has traditionally been tx as "submit" (ie Eph 5:21-22) which is the military meaning/context... the NON military meaning is a more mutual, collaborative & cooperative sharing of burdens & responsibilities... we have almost completely lost that understanding over time somehow... see link below for definitions #1-6 that are all military context, however the meaning is differentiated in the description below the traditional meanings... https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotasso.html
ie episkope' in 1 Tim 3:1 which authoritarian/patriarchal & episcopalians have had a hay day with... it is meant to be about people caring for one another, meeting the needs of those around them that are suffering & struggling... it has become hierarchy (overseer) of titles & power (bishop) particularly for men per the KJVs even though the Greek means ANYONE!
I believe a better translation is "caregiver"... the care is with & among the suffering/struggling, not over, & it can be ANYONE (male or female) who sees someone in need & gives appropriate care to meet those needs... I get this understanding from this...
BOQ... properly, oversight that naturally goes on to provide the care and attention appropriate to the "personal visitation." EOQ excerpt from: https://biblehub.com/greek/1984.htm
I disagree with the "over"... & instead you are ON SITE (aka visiting) with inSIGHT so you see the needs & take care of them in ways that match the need & help bring healing... this seems to be more in alignment with God's commmands/relational principles of "one another"...
Hebr 13:17 is another verse w authoritarian red flags, but that's it for now, or it will become a firehose ;)