As with the Catholics, the Evangelical movement in America has also been forced to deal with people in leadership that has publically failed to live by the standards their own structure demands from them. Initially these leaders have tried to deny their guilt but when they eventually have had no other choice but to confess, the movement has done a remarkable job trying to restore the confidence in them. I am not claiming that all situations have been the same but I have noticed a general trend of public repentance and counselling broadcasted on television. The principal message has been that ‘Yes, this person screwed up but look at what is happening now, we are leading the sinner back on the right path, so you can safely continue to have faith in our leadership’.
The alternative to this orchestrated repentance ceremony has been for the other leaders to totally reject the wrongdoer and exclude him or her from the group of trusted leaders. We saw this take place not too long ago when Rob Bell started asking uncomfortable questions about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived. Before his book ‘Love Wins’ was even published he had received goodbye messages on Twitter and well-respected pastors talked about him as a heretic in every possible media available. This situation was obviously different than with some other leaders since Bell was not willing to repent from his opinions and that is, I believe, why the other leaders saw no other choice but to publically denounce him. Such an act is called scapegoating and when done in public it carries the power to create unity within the structure.
As we now have seen, there seems to be at least three different ways of protecting the structure when its representatives fail to live up to its own standards. The first one is to ignore it completely and hope that the problem never reaches the surface; the second is for the other leaders to restore the failed leader’s credibility in public; and the third is to straightforwardly sacrifice the fallen leader if no other option is available.
Another thing I hope has become visible in these posts is that it does not matter what kind of transgression the leader has committed, what matters is that he or she has broken against the rules of the structure. Hence, different structures might have different rules but the important thing is that the ordinary people within the structure can see a resemblance between the leaders and the Christ that is being preached by them. This is, to give another example, why it is important for preachers of prosperity theology to radiate wealth and health since if they did not, people would see a discrepancy between the preacher and the message.
The experience of dying with Christ does not mean that we simply step from one such structure to a better one, rather when we die with Christ we die away from all structures based on exclusion and are led into a new life where we no longer are Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; for all are one in Christ Jesus. In this new life there is no exceptions to Jesus’ commandment to love your neighbour as yourself because the idol god of the oppressive structures has died and in this life we are called to live lives shaped by the promise of a reconciled world achieved and made known by God through the raising of Christ from the dead.
I think it is important that people understand that just because someone was tossed from the church or is denounced by the church, it doesn’t mean they are, necessarily wrong or bad or evil. I have found this to be done, as you said, to help keep the denomination strong and united rather than it have to be because of the truth in the matter. If someone makes a bold statement or asks a risky question they may not receive as much an answer as a swift kick to the door. Just an opinion. I felt you were somewhat agreeing with me here, though that was not, necessarily the main point you were making.
Scott
I agree with you but as I have said before, it’s very hard to make that message known in these structures since any critique from within will be incorporated into the structure and any critique from the outside will be deemed as an attack. Hence, I claim that the way out from an oppressive structure is not by intellectual reasoning but through the experience of dying away from it.
Great post!
Your point has become blessedly visible in your posts, and I say “amen” to it.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ time had built a meticulous and detailed structure within which they assumed the coming Messiah would operate. But because he arrived outside of the structure, they did not recognize him—the very One to whom they had devoted their lives in preparation for.
What if Christ’s second coming happens outside our carefully-constructed Evangelical structure? Will we be the last to recognize Him for Who he is? Or will our leaders label Him a heretic, lambast Him through social media, and throw Him under the bus?
I believe the most important thing about Christ, if he truly existed at all, is following his teachings of loving and caring for thy neighbor. I say if he exists as there is no reference to Jesus in the first millennium following his death in any writings. Records from this era have been known to be fairly imperfect.
Well, most people would agree that ‘loving and caring for thy neighbor’ is sort of a nice ethical commandment but it doesn’t really set a framework for itself and can thus be understood basically the way we want it to. Hence, the life, death and resurrection of Christ becomes utterly important if we are to look towards him at all. I have written several posts regarding this topic before so if you are interested you can scroll down and read them.
And by the way, the first millenium? It would be more accurate to say that there is not a whole lot of references to Christ from the first century but as I’m sure you know, the biblical texts were written quite close to the actual events. If you want to know more about this, read Bart Ehrman who is professor of religious studies at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s an agnostic and I guess that gives him a bit of extra credibility since he does’t have a preferred answer to his scholarly questions about Jesus. If you don’t want to read, here is a podcast from Homebrewed Christianity where he answers questions on Jesus’ existence: http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/04/03/bart-ehrman-on-jesus-existence-apocalypticism-holy-week/
To revere the death of Christ, one must believe in supernatural events and I’m simply unable to do that given the excessive lack of evidence. Christ’s death and resurrection resonated far less loudly than the kind words of the Golden Rule. But that’s just an atheist for ya.
The distinction between the natural and the supernatural is only valid within a specific worldview, therefore I don’t agree with your claim that you have to believe in the supernatural to revere the death (and resurrection) of Christ. My response is thus not to defend the supernatural, rather I would like to know why you believe that the distinction is valid? From where I’m standing it seems as if you presuppose the supernatural in order to deny it with the aim of arguing for your conclusion. My advise would therefore be to question your worldview rather than the resurrection. But that’s just a Christian for ya
I presuppose it’s utter nonsense fabricated by man to control others. Period. I’m narrow minded I guess, or am I????
I agree with you that religious leaders have misused religion to control others, hence the post I just wrote, but from my perspective it seems a bit farfetched to conclude that all religious faith therefore is narrow minded. My claim is that the Christian faith is a critique against all such leaders and systems that oppress, control or exclude others. As my argument goes, becoming a Christian means exactly that you ‘die’ away from these types of behaviour, be they motivated by religion, ideology, ethnicity, gender or whatever. The horizon then becomes a reconciled world where everyone serves one another in love and humility. The church’s mission should therefore be to live a life shaped by this future horizon today. Unfortunately we seem to fail in doing this too often and that is what I want to change. Period.
Hi Josef,
Have a blessed day!
Are you going after structure as a concept or just corrupt structure of leadership in the church? (De ja vu..) I believe structure (Logic, Logos) to be “the form” or “the body” that are filled with “content”. To denounce structure as “concept” would be to denounce the body, the Logos and the law (both moral and scientific). And this in essence is gnosticism, denying the phusical of any goodness. I don’t think this is what you mean but your language has enough of a gnostic tone that I had to ask? Rebellion is never the answer, only restoration, right?
I’m not trying to advocate gnosticism of any kind but I would not limit the discussion to simply corrupt leadership in the church. As I have written in previous posts, I believe that the cross (in part) represents a critique against all unjust systems based on power and exclusion. However, I don’t consider history as a totality, rather I think that it is open. Hence, I don’t believe that it contains the solutions to our present day crises in itself. The last paragraph in the post provides at least a hint to where I’m going in my argumentation. But just to be clear, the world is here to stay, the body matters, the new Jerusalem is coming down from heaven to the earth, everything will be reconciled to God and the resurrection should be understood as the launching of a christologically inaugurated eschatological process. Christ was the first fruit and one day we will all rise and the whole creation will be made new. That is my hope! And yes, love wins. Hence, the process has begun but it has not yet reached it’s completion. Therefore, the mission of the church is to be shaped by the promised future and make it known to the world through self sacrificing love, forgiveness and an endless struggle for reconciliation till the day of the Lord.
This is a huge subject but I’m sure that I will clarify at least some of my thoughts further on.