I must confess I'm writing this post in a state of despair, as an Englishman I have the American Christian Nationalists to my west, the C of E on my doorstep that is crippled by the sex scandal of John Smyth and the resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby at a time when political tensions are highest, after that I have the Vatican to the East which people generally play connect three and remark on past sex scandals and just condemn us all outright.
I generally despise the persecution complex of Christians but in some places there has been a truth to the matter and very real danger to life. Generally what false claimants of persecution cite are states not moving in line with the moral view of the Church or sometimes what they see to be the view of the Church in the case of Christian Nationalists; the remarks are generally absurd as Christianity grew up in a pagan society and with hind sight (or perhaps its just me getting older) the so called 'Christendom' was never particularly Christian at all.
Now, however, there is a persecution of Christians, not a physical one but a societal one: in the American Christian Nationalists' marriage to Trump, a court found rapist who surrounds himself with other rapists and misogynists.
The Church can't be married to a rapist, we are supposed to be the bride of Christ; this infidelity is not only idolatrous but is seen to echo the C of E crisis, and connect three back to historical abuse in the Catholic Church. We are found wanting either by those who lead us or by association. Is it our fault? I don't think that is a question I can answer, each of us has to look to ourselves and how we behave but by and large it is the institution that has failed us. The C of E is blamed for the sex scandal but the Church isn't merely an institution but a community and the community is what's suffering.
To make matters worse Zionism and the Church in America is seen to be supporting Israeli war crimes and the C of E's theological split will risk rupture in the current crisis.
So where do we stand? If it is the institution that is failing us, perhaps its time for the institution to go.
Many have pondered the idea of 'religionless' Christianity, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer who saw a Church bogged down in dogma and failing in its moral path, though he died before fulling expounding the idea. The Quakers sought to remove outward acts and symbolism, though in the long run this has lead them into a situation where there are many non-Christian Quakers, their embodiment of their beliefs and their drive are almost unmatched in purity.
I wonder if its time we returned to the Presbyterian model of old, patterned after the early Church and the way it should be run as written in the bible. Such an act would be to tear down the institution of the Church itself and would have risks; without a standardized structure how could we have seminaries to teach the next generation of clergy being a prime example but we may have come too big to succeed and despite falling numbers of Christians the reality of that fact is finally catching up with us.
The original model was based on a council of elders who elected a minister for their individual Church, as well as deacons who acted as specialists in their field of running the Church as an organization or simply being an elected member serving the church much like we have lay preachers and youth group leaders.
The advantage of such a model is that it prevents this trickle down of slurry that occurs when the hierarchy of an organized Church fails, the downside of course is if the council of elders becomes corrupt there is no one to prevent abuses.
In the early Church debates between ministers of local Churches weren't uncommon, rather than the forced will of and Archbishop or Pope, the line of doctrine was decided at a local level. Whilst that meant that there was little standardization in what congregations believed, it prevented the larger schisms that effected the Church both now and later on in Church history. It eased the tectonic plates of varying beliefs, preventing earthquakes in the Church. That said regional leaders allow for debates to be had on a wider scale across the Church preventing local stagnation.
We can't own the past, not because we don't want to but we can't really take the blame in the eyes of the public for what as individuals we had no hand in but if no one is guilty in many ways everyone is guilty. There is a reason for the ritual of the scapegoat in the old testament.
To be a Christian has become a dirty word, and not for the right reasons: Christian, was originally an insult used at believers in the Church's early history and we came to own it. It is written the we will be hated by the world for the world first hated Christ but now we are hated for our worldliness.
Whilst legitimate accusations are made against the Trump campaign and its power base, Christian Nationalists, the rest of the Church is tarnished and bruised.
In the railing of the masses for justice, we now are fair game for blame and when questioned they say 'yes we know their are still good Christians' but they never talk about us.
Perhaps it is time we cast aside the trappings we have acquired; the epithet of Christian for it has been misused until it is something abominable, the hierarchy of the Church that has been too sullied and of the name Church for it has become synonymous with abuse and is actually not even a decent translation of the word in means, the assembly.
For we are the assembly. There were never meant to be such power gaps in the Church between congregants and the ministers. Perhaps its time we return to the past to reclaim our future.
Comments