I am often amused by the news stories I read, and yesterday I read a pretty funny one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wrtv/20070227/lo_wrtv/11122828
Apparently, some sorority members in Indiana at DePauw University didn't get the memo that members of sororities are supposed to be attractive. Out of a chapter of 35, only 12 were slender and pretty enough (apparently) to meet the national chapter's rigorous standards. The University is protesting, complaining about the hardship it has caused its students, and is considering requesting the sorority to leave campus. What most concerns me, though, is that some people actually believe that sororities were meant to promote womanhood. Indeed, it appears that the university and many of the sorority members are the ones confused about what sororities (and the Greek system as a whole) is actually about.
Now, I have never been a part of a fraternity (and certainly not a sorority, obviously) myself, but during my time in Los Angeles I lived about half a block north of Fraternity row at the University South Central (as I affectionately called it). Delta Zeta might have been one of the many fraternities and sororities in that area (my old apartment, in fact, had once been the fraternity house for some Pharmacy fraternity). I can't remember, though. It was all Greek to me. I do remember, though, that the Tri Delta Sorority was at the end of our street, and they were widely considered to be one of the most competitive sororities (and had a large number of slender blonde members).
There are basically two types of fraternities/sororities that I saw. Some fraternities (though no sororities) were professional fraternities. The professional fraternities were generally coed, and included Alpha Rho Chi (the Architecture fraternity, where I had many friends), as well as professional fraternities for nursing students, engineers (I had many friends and classmates here as well), and so forth. These fraternities partied, but also had a professional focus that allowed students with similar majors to congregate together. Generally speaking, even as a teetotler I did not have a problem visiting my friends at those houses. Other fraternities like honor fraternities would also fall into this category as well.
The other fraternities and sororities appeared somewhat more sinister to me, however. They were largely filled with rather affluent students in high risk of contracting cirrhosis of the liver and any number of other diseases involved with copious amounts of alcohol consumption and fornication. While claiming to benefit the campus life in general, these societies were made up of people who were often quite arrogant, and unpleasant to be around (especially on Thursday through Saturday nights when msot of the partying went on). The people in this second group of fraternities certainly gained useful connections, but that had more to do with the fact that they were all pretty well off and well-connected already, and were now even better connected.
As far as the sororities go, they had even less credit to their names, as they appeared to be largely populated with young ladies whose slim figures as freshman pledges tended to gain as the years progressed due to poor eating habits and excessive drinking. Sadly, the wardrobe quality of many of these young ladies (though not all) did not tend to improve as they aged. Nurse's uniforms on Halloween remained a consistent tradition on that street during my time there. Indeed, the only way sororities might have promoted womanhood is to provide a place for girls to be around each other without guys around. I don't know if that's a good thing, though.
I don't know, to be honest, what the young ladies at DePauw University expected from their fraternity. Maybe they justed wanted to meet friendly and ambitious young ladies. If so, perhaps they would have been better served joining service clubs or professional clubs rather than a sorority. If your focus is not on the superficial, then there is probably no place for you in Delta Zeta or any number of other sororities. Perhaps being kicked out of the sorority is a good thing--if they are not superficial enough they just may be good enough people that a sorority would do them no good at all. And that is a matter of celebration, rather than mourning. Sometimes being kicked out of a group can be a good thing, after all. That, however, is a subject for another day.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Profile In Courage
Yesterday I read a fantastic article about a person who has taken a brave stance against corruption by the wealthy and powerful in the rather corrupt nation of Columbia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_uribe_s_nemesis
Anyway, I was most impressed in the article by the courage this particular fellow had to oppose the drug traffickers on the left as well as the paramilitaries/government on the right. It is not an easy thing to antagonize everyone with guns in a nation as violent as Columbia. I am not someone who views Hugo Chavez very highly, so I do not know what to make of the friendship Gustavo Petro has with him, but there is much about his behavior that is admirable and worthwhile. Let us take a few lessons and comment on them.
1. Fight the power.
In today's world, those who hold power at all are generally corrupt, and often threaten those who seek justice and truth. Leaders would rather have those who follow them blinded by idyllic and pleasant false visions than grapple with the truth about what is and how it came to be. In most cases these threats are not all that severe (depending on what sort of authority someone has), but in the case of Señor Petro, he and his family have been threatened with death due to his firm stand against corruption in high places. Then again, as Mr. Petro was tortured by various unpleasant means (including large amounts of beating and dunking) for mostly peaceful protesting, it appears as if he has little fear for himself, and a realistic appraisal of what his resistance means to him and to his long-suffering people.
2. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
When faced with unpleasant accusations, there are a few sorts of defenses that people can make. The best defense is to come clean (preferably on 60 Minutes or some other popular show) and to be honest about one's side of the story, not minimizing what one has done, but putting a less hostile spin on it than was initially presented. Honesty about one's own flaws and foibles gives a lot of credibility when talking about those of others. After all, if we are not honest about ourselves, we are not likely to be honest about others as well. And if we have nothing to hide, those who oppose us should not have anything to hide either. Those, on the other hand, who do have something to hide, cannot bear to have their lives brought into the harsh light of day. Therefore they can choose to either hide their lives all the more and refuse to answer allegations (pretending that such matters are beneath them), or they can attack the person opposing them by slurring, namecalling, and the like. Most of us choose both methods (the odd fellows among us choose all three methods, in a baffling display of inconsistency). The point, though, is that enough independent allegations leads to a prima facie case of wrongdoing, and the refusal to answer becomes an admission of guilt.
3. Never Give Up
Columbia right now is experiencing a massive scandal extending all the way to the presidency thanks to the persistent efforts of Gustavo Petro and other members of the democratic opposition. In steadfastly opposing the paramilitary of the right wing (supported, sadly, by the American government with billions of dollars worth of aid and equipment) and in defending the rights and dignity of an oppressed common folk, Gustavo Petro has demonstrated firm integrity as well as a stubborn refusal to give in. Even where one would disagree with his policies (and I must admit I do not know them very well, except that I would assume human rights, avoidance of corruption, and land reform would be among them), one must respect someone who behaves with integrity and avoids making alliances of convenience with either the paramilitaries/military forces or the leftist guerillas, who between them have all the guns.
So, this blog gives a salute to the bravery and integrity of Gustavo Petro, former guerilla and now muckraking politician. Let there be others as brave and morally upright as you in the struggle against the evil all around us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_uribe_s_nemesis
Anyway, I was most impressed in the article by the courage this particular fellow had to oppose the drug traffickers on the left as well as the paramilitaries/government on the right. It is not an easy thing to antagonize everyone with guns in a nation as violent as Columbia. I am not someone who views Hugo Chavez very highly, so I do not know what to make of the friendship Gustavo Petro has with him, but there is much about his behavior that is admirable and worthwhile. Let us take a few lessons and comment on them.
1. Fight the power.
In today's world, those who hold power at all are generally corrupt, and often threaten those who seek justice and truth. Leaders would rather have those who follow them blinded by idyllic and pleasant false visions than grapple with the truth about what is and how it came to be. In most cases these threats are not all that severe (depending on what sort of authority someone has), but in the case of Señor Petro, he and his family have been threatened with death due to his firm stand against corruption in high places. Then again, as Mr. Petro was tortured by various unpleasant means (including large amounts of beating and dunking) for mostly peaceful protesting, it appears as if he has little fear for himself, and a realistic appraisal of what his resistance means to him and to his long-suffering people.
2. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
When faced with unpleasant accusations, there are a few sorts of defenses that people can make. The best defense is to come clean (preferably on 60 Minutes or some other popular show) and to be honest about one's side of the story, not minimizing what one has done, but putting a less hostile spin on it than was initially presented. Honesty about one's own flaws and foibles gives a lot of credibility when talking about those of others. After all, if we are not honest about ourselves, we are not likely to be honest about others as well. And if we have nothing to hide, those who oppose us should not have anything to hide either. Those, on the other hand, who do have something to hide, cannot bear to have their lives brought into the harsh light of day. Therefore they can choose to either hide their lives all the more and refuse to answer allegations (pretending that such matters are beneath them), or they can attack the person opposing them by slurring, namecalling, and the like. Most of us choose both methods (the odd fellows among us choose all three methods, in a baffling display of inconsistency). The point, though, is that enough independent allegations leads to a prima facie case of wrongdoing, and the refusal to answer becomes an admission of guilt.
3. Never Give Up
Columbia right now is experiencing a massive scandal extending all the way to the presidency thanks to the persistent efforts of Gustavo Petro and other members of the democratic opposition. In steadfastly opposing the paramilitary of the right wing (supported, sadly, by the American government with billions of dollars worth of aid and equipment) and in defending the rights and dignity of an oppressed common folk, Gustavo Petro has demonstrated firm integrity as well as a stubborn refusal to give in. Even where one would disagree with his policies (and I must admit I do not know them very well, except that I would assume human rights, avoidance of corruption, and land reform would be among them), one must respect someone who behaves with integrity and avoids making alliances of convenience with either the paramilitaries/military forces or the leftist guerillas, who between them have all the guns.
So, this blog gives a salute to the bravery and integrity of Gustavo Petro, former guerilla and now muckraking politician. Let there be others as brave and morally upright as you in the struggle against the evil all around us.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Keep Them Separated
Now, I get a lot of e-mails that I find vaguely irritating, and most of them I simply delete. However, some of them (see the Nigerian e-mail scam blog entry) become blogger-worthy rants. Some time ago (to be exact, it was February 11th), I received an e-mail that I get regularly that is supposedly written by someone I know a little bit (and know greater by reputation, as he is the President of the church I generally attend). The e-mail irritated me because it was highly simplistic and purported to add accuracy to thinking when in reality it did no such thing.
There were six "separations" that the author stated were useful in organizing what is learned. Each of these six is worthy of comment:
1. Separate the facts from mere information.
Well, in case someone has failed to consult the dictionary, information and facts are highly related. In fact (no pun intended), information is facts that are collected and from which conclusions may be drawn. Therefore if this statement were to be accurate, it should be stated: separate information from mere facts. However, even in this form the statement is unhelpful, as the diligent collection of facts to form information is quite useful in honing one's intellectual abilities. Here is one example where separation is of no help whatsoever, because having the facts together to form information, and then utilizing the information to form knowledge and then wisdom is a fundamental process in sharpening one's own intellect. Only a moron would seek to separate people from the process to developing independent thinking.
2. Separate the truth from idle gossip.
This separation principle is also unhelpful. What is truth to someone is idle gossip to someone else, and vice versa. In order for this principle to be helpful, there must be clear boundaries as to what is considered truth and what is gossip. Indeed, gossip need not be untrue. Do we trust the word of others on reputation without supporting evidence and logical presentation? If so, then even if that person is a minister or politician or boss, or other leader, then we are accepting gossip rather than truth. Determining the truth can be a very unpleasant task, and oftentimes it can only be gathered through a close understanding of gossip, as the dark truths may be impolitic to say out in the open. In this way, one may need to have a close ear to gossip in order to understand the truth.
3. Separate the good from the bad.
Again, it appears as if this principle is entirely useless if one wants to live a life in truth. The truth is the honest and unvarnished knowledge of ourselves and our world, and those around us, and that can either be good or bad. Separating out the good from the bad to focus on either in isolation does us no good in finding the balance of matters. If we focus only on the good, we become blind to the dark evil inside of ourselves and others, particularly those who do not like to deal with unpleasant truths. If we focus only on the bad and not the good, then our lives become darkened because we do not see that there is good in this world (even if there is not as much of it as we would like). If we surround ourselves with darkness, we cannot help but be corrupted by it. But if we do not deal with darkness at all we lack understanding of our world and ourselves, and cannot truly repent of who we are.
4. Separate the important from the unimportant.
This principle would be helpful if one could tell what was important and unimportant. And a further question needs to be dealt with: important to whom? If we separate matters based on what is important to us, we become rather selfish and self-centered, and that is certainly not a godly way to be. We do not always know what is important to God, though where we do know this we have an obligation to act accordingly. However, while it may be unimportant to us to play ball with our children (if we have any) in the yard, such matters may be very important to our children, as they are a sign of love and consideration. Again, unless one has defined what is important correctly, it appears that this principle is an invitation to selfishness.
5. Separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
Again, it appears as if this is an unhelpful principle of separation. What is not relevant in a particular situation may be very relevant in another situation. Also, if we have already separated the good and the bad (see above), then we may be missing very relevant information to a situation, especially if it involves the unpleasant reactions people have to certain situations. Unless we are sensitive to where people are coming from, and what background they have, we can often make little sense of their behavior, and this is certainly not going to improve our lives. Ignorance is not bliss, even if knowledge is seldom blissful as well.
6. Separate the usable from the unusable.
Again, it seems as if this principle is not a helpful one if written large. While in any given situation one may have to parce out information that can be used now from what cannot, over the long term there might be vastly more information that is usable, and if that information is lost then future decisions may be imparied by a lack of knowledge. If this author wishes to give wise advice for wise decisions, he ought to be vastly more informative and precise than he is in these rather overly simplistic maxims.
Oh, and I have class now, so I guess it is time to /rant, for now. I have another one to come if time permits later on.
There were six "separations" that the author stated were useful in organizing what is learned. Each of these six is worthy of comment:
1. Separate the facts from mere information.
Well, in case someone has failed to consult the dictionary, information and facts are highly related. In fact (no pun intended), information is facts that are collected and from which conclusions may be drawn. Therefore if this statement were to be accurate, it should be stated: separate information from mere facts. However, even in this form the statement is unhelpful, as the diligent collection of facts to form information is quite useful in honing one's intellectual abilities. Here is one example where separation is of no help whatsoever, because having the facts together to form information, and then utilizing the information to form knowledge and then wisdom is a fundamental process in sharpening one's own intellect. Only a moron would seek to separate people from the process to developing independent thinking.
2. Separate the truth from idle gossip.
This separation principle is also unhelpful. What is truth to someone is idle gossip to someone else, and vice versa. In order for this principle to be helpful, there must be clear boundaries as to what is considered truth and what is gossip. Indeed, gossip need not be untrue. Do we trust the word of others on reputation without supporting evidence and logical presentation? If so, then even if that person is a minister or politician or boss, or other leader, then we are accepting gossip rather than truth. Determining the truth can be a very unpleasant task, and oftentimes it can only be gathered through a close understanding of gossip, as the dark truths may be impolitic to say out in the open. In this way, one may need to have a close ear to gossip in order to understand the truth.
3. Separate the good from the bad.
Again, it appears as if this principle is entirely useless if one wants to live a life in truth. The truth is the honest and unvarnished knowledge of ourselves and our world, and those around us, and that can either be good or bad. Separating out the good from the bad to focus on either in isolation does us no good in finding the balance of matters. If we focus only on the good, we become blind to the dark evil inside of ourselves and others, particularly those who do not like to deal with unpleasant truths. If we focus only on the bad and not the good, then our lives become darkened because we do not see that there is good in this world (even if there is not as much of it as we would like). If we surround ourselves with darkness, we cannot help but be corrupted by it. But if we do not deal with darkness at all we lack understanding of our world and ourselves, and cannot truly repent of who we are.
4. Separate the important from the unimportant.
This principle would be helpful if one could tell what was important and unimportant. And a further question needs to be dealt with: important to whom? If we separate matters based on what is important to us, we become rather selfish and self-centered, and that is certainly not a godly way to be. We do not always know what is important to God, though where we do know this we have an obligation to act accordingly. However, while it may be unimportant to us to play ball with our children (if we have any) in the yard, such matters may be very important to our children, as they are a sign of love and consideration. Again, unless one has defined what is important correctly, it appears that this principle is an invitation to selfishness.
5. Separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
Again, it appears as if this is an unhelpful principle of separation. What is not relevant in a particular situation may be very relevant in another situation. Also, if we have already separated the good and the bad (see above), then we may be missing very relevant information to a situation, especially if it involves the unpleasant reactions people have to certain situations. Unless we are sensitive to where people are coming from, and what background they have, we can often make little sense of their behavior, and this is certainly not going to improve our lives. Ignorance is not bliss, even if knowledge is seldom blissful as well.
6. Separate the usable from the unusable.
Again, it seems as if this principle is not a helpful one if written large. While in any given situation one may have to parce out information that can be used now from what cannot, over the long term there might be vastly more information that is usable, and if that information is lost then future decisions may be imparied by a lack of knowledge. If this author wishes to give wise advice for wise decisions, he ought to be vastly more informative and precise than he is in these rather overly simplistic maxims.
Oh, and I have class now, so I guess it is time to /rant, for now. I have another one to come if time permits later on.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Fifteen Points
In 1939, a noted religious who founded one of the largest Sabbatarian Christian organizations and whose influence (for good and ill) has spread far and wide throughout the world in many religious organizations to this day made the following fifteen points. I will list them here and comment on each of the points.
1) The assembly is not an institution or an organization, but a society of believers.
This is quite true. While a religious organization can be useful, even necessary, to act in these rather over-regulated times, one must never confuse an organization, which is a business entity meant to fulfill legal obligations (usually involving tax law) with the assembly of believers (the actual "Church of God"), which forms a spiritual organism rather than a physical organization. This spiritual organism (which the NT authors, in particular Paul, were fond of comparing to a body) may include members in a variety of organizations (or none at all) and includes those who have been called at all times, and those who are yet to be called into the family of God. It is obvious that such an entity cannot ever be contained within one physical organization.
2) The church is not hierarchical, that is, in descending order of minister, elders, deacons, male laity, male children, women, and female children.
This point should go without saying. The offices of the Church of God (see Acts, Ephesians, Titus, etc.) are not ordered in a hierarchial form, but are rather defined in a functional manner depending on the various gifts that God gives us. While each of us has some gifts in excess of the usual (whether teaching or organizational skills or language and so forth), all of us, regardless of supposed rank, are to develop our spiritual skills in all areas to the best of our abilities as we seek to become like God. Even our savior Himself did not place Himself on a hierarchy above us. Jesus considers Himself our elder brother, and elder brothers are not to lord it over younger brothers. Rather, they seek to lead their younger siblings by example in a spirit of loving service and gentle instruction. If Jesus Christ does not lord it over us (when he could claim the right to do so), then no human leaders can justify a hierarchial society.
3) The Christian's relationship to the church is organic, not organizational.
See commentary to point #1 above. The Bible is consistent in treating the church as a body of believers (both in the sense of an organism and in the sense of an assembly), rather than in the organizational and beaurocratic terms which our benighted generation is so fond of. This is plain to any who open the Bible and read it with eyes open.
4) The church has no office and elects no officer.
Properly speaking, religion is an avocation not a vocation (thanks Mr. Ed for the lively commentary on that difference). Just as the rabbis in the first century were trained for a trade as well as their religious instruction, those who serve congregations were not intended to do so for filthy lucre. Paul himself, for example, refused to take monetary support from congregations when it became a problem (such as in Corinth), an example that few today seem to follow. It is sad that many today who draw salaries for religious service are unqualified for any other gainful (read: professional) employment. This should not be. In addition, the Church of God (as it is an organism rather than an organization) cannot elect an officer. For one, Jesus alone is head of the church, and any who would usurp Him have a lot to answer for. For another, those officers chosen in an organization are not done often for godly reasons, and are entirely lacking in a spiritual matter, simply existing for the good of the members and not reflecting any great spiritual understanding or excellence. When the first seven deacons were chosen by the early Church, it was for the purpose of serving the needs of the brethren in the collection to allow the apostles to spend their time preaching rather than waiting on tables. Such a position did not signify that the said deacons were in any way superior to others, but they were placed in responsibilty due to their prior reputation for diligence and reliability and faithful honesty.
5) Elders and deacons are not officers.
This is true (see above) because elders and deacons are servants and not masters.
6) There is no such thing as "instant elders" created by official act. In the pursuit of the Christian vocation members become elders as a matter of growth and maturity.
Those who have been ordained elders without demonstrating the proper wisdom and moral excellence for their position (not an easy task) bring discredit on many others.
7) Elders are not "over the church" and members are not "under the elders."
This should go without saying. The Bible (see 1 Peter 5 and elsewhere) teaches mutual submission, as everyone is to respect and honor everyone else, rather than behave as baboons do in a dominance-subodination hierarchy.
8) Overseers are "in" and "among" rather than over the assembly.
Again, this is an obvious point given the biblical doctrine of mutual accountability.
9) Overseeing does not involve control and carries no authority -- that is, the power to rule and to decide.
Overseeing is a responsibility for the benefit of the members, rather than a position of authority over the members.
10) "Elders" are simply senior members, male and female, who have matured through years of service. Ideally, there should be as many elders as there are older members, with no case of arrested growth.
This is quite true, although sadly this is not the case because there are vast majority of elders in age who through arrested growth are not cable of mature service but who still require milk and not meat.
11) "Deacons" is simply a generic term describing members, male and female, who serve. In New Testament times deacons ranged from apostles to lower members.
Again, this is quite true. A deacon was a word for a servant or waiter (for waiters then and now are servants who bring us food--whether spiritual or physical). The prominent leaders of the NT church (see Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.) were fond of calling themselves the servant or slave of Christ, which meant that they were the servants and slaves of the members as a whole. Many early church leaders were literal slaves as well, from early histories, and our current church leaders are so in at least a metaphorical sense.
12) Deacons in the church do not constitute a special class or have a special rank, or do any special work. They are merely servants devoted to the life of the Christian community.
This is obvious given the example of such servants in Acts and elsewhere in the Bible. However, as we are wicked and desire rank and position for ourselves, like the carnal 12 disciples before the death of Christ, we have twisted this into a base and false hierarchy.
13) Permission of elders is not required before anyone may engage in any Christian work or share in the activities of the church. Denying a member any active participation in prayers, songs, teaching, or exhortation is a gross usurpation of power contrary to the Bible.
No comment.
14) No man or group of men has any authority in the church by virtue of office which does not belong to other members.
Amen, and amen.
15) Nothing shall be done which affects the whole church without every member being heard before the decision is made. The quorum necessary for any action by the church is the entire membership. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur-- "What touches all, is to be approved by all." This is not a matter of passive assent or silence, but the result of active participation.
This is correct, and it is regrettable that many decisions are not made in the light of day, but rather in darkness and secrecy. Kudos to those leaders who seek not only the passive acceptance but the active participation of their brethren, and follow the example of the early church (read Acts 15 for a particularly enlightening account of a conference were apostles, elders, deacons, and members (all discussing as equals) came to agreement on what could have been a violent confrontation).
When I read these fifteen points, I shake my head and wonder how we wandered so far into the darkness when the truth was there in the light all along.
1) The assembly is not an institution or an organization, but a society of believers.
This is quite true. While a religious organization can be useful, even necessary, to act in these rather over-regulated times, one must never confuse an organization, which is a business entity meant to fulfill legal obligations (usually involving tax law) with the assembly of believers (the actual "Church of God"), which forms a spiritual organism rather than a physical organization. This spiritual organism (which the NT authors, in particular Paul, were fond of comparing to a body) may include members in a variety of organizations (or none at all) and includes those who have been called at all times, and those who are yet to be called into the family of God. It is obvious that such an entity cannot ever be contained within one physical organization.
2) The church is not hierarchical, that is, in descending order of minister, elders, deacons, male laity, male children, women, and female children.
This point should go without saying. The offices of the Church of God (see Acts, Ephesians, Titus, etc.) are not ordered in a hierarchial form, but are rather defined in a functional manner depending on the various gifts that God gives us. While each of us has some gifts in excess of the usual (whether teaching or organizational skills or language and so forth), all of us, regardless of supposed rank, are to develop our spiritual skills in all areas to the best of our abilities as we seek to become like God. Even our savior Himself did not place Himself on a hierarchy above us. Jesus considers Himself our elder brother, and elder brothers are not to lord it over younger brothers. Rather, they seek to lead their younger siblings by example in a spirit of loving service and gentle instruction. If Jesus Christ does not lord it over us (when he could claim the right to do so), then no human leaders can justify a hierarchial society.
3) The Christian's relationship to the church is organic, not organizational.
See commentary to point #1 above. The Bible is consistent in treating the church as a body of believers (both in the sense of an organism and in the sense of an assembly), rather than in the organizational and beaurocratic terms which our benighted generation is so fond of. This is plain to any who open the Bible and read it with eyes open.
4) The church has no office and elects no officer.
Properly speaking, religion is an avocation not a vocation (thanks Mr. Ed for the lively commentary on that difference). Just as the rabbis in the first century were trained for a trade as well as their religious instruction, those who serve congregations were not intended to do so for filthy lucre. Paul himself, for example, refused to take monetary support from congregations when it became a problem (such as in Corinth), an example that few today seem to follow. It is sad that many today who draw salaries for religious service are unqualified for any other gainful (read: professional) employment. This should not be. In addition, the Church of God (as it is an organism rather than an organization) cannot elect an officer. For one, Jesus alone is head of the church, and any who would usurp Him have a lot to answer for. For another, those officers chosen in an organization are not done often for godly reasons, and are entirely lacking in a spiritual matter, simply existing for the good of the members and not reflecting any great spiritual understanding or excellence. When the first seven deacons were chosen by the early Church, it was for the purpose of serving the needs of the brethren in the collection to allow the apostles to spend their time preaching rather than waiting on tables. Such a position did not signify that the said deacons were in any way superior to others, but they were placed in responsibilty due to their prior reputation for diligence and reliability and faithful honesty.
5) Elders and deacons are not officers.
This is true (see above) because elders and deacons are servants and not masters.
6) There is no such thing as "instant elders" created by official act. In the pursuit of the Christian vocation members become elders as a matter of growth and maturity.
Those who have been ordained elders without demonstrating the proper wisdom and moral excellence for their position (not an easy task) bring discredit on many others.
7) Elders are not "over the church" and members are not "under the elders."
This should go without saying. The Bible (see 1 Peter 5 and elsewhere) teaches mutual submission, as everyone is to respect and honor everyone else, rather than behave as baboons do in a dominance-subodination hierarchy.
8) Overseers are "in" and "among" rather than over the assembly.
Again, this is an obvious point given the biblical doctrine of mutual accountability.
9) Overseeing does not involve control and carries no authority -- that is, the power to rule and to decide.
Overseeing is a responsibility for the benefit of the members, rather than a position of authority over the members.
10) "Elders" are simply senior members, male and female, who have matured through years of service. Ideally, there should be as many elders as there are older members, with no case of arrested growth.
This is quite true, although sadly this is not the case because there are vast majority of elders in age who through arrested growth are not cable of mature service but who still require milk and not meat.
11) "Deacons" is simply a generic term describing members, male and female, who serve. In New Testament times deacons ranged from apostles to lower members.
Again, this is quite true. A deacon was a word for a servant or waiter (for waiters then and now are servants who bring us food--whether spiritual or physical). The prominent leaders of the NT church (see Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.) were fond of calling themselves the servant or slave of Christ, which meant that they were the servants and slaves of the members as a whole. Many early church leaders were literal slaves as well, from early histories, and our current church leaders are so in at least a metaphorical sense.
12) Deacons in the church do not constitute a special class or have a special rank, or do any special work. They are merely servants devoted to the life of the Christian community.
This is obvious given the example of such servants in Acts and elsewhere in the Bible. However, as we are wicked and desire rank and position for ourselves, like the carnal 12 disciples before the death of Christ, we have twisted this into a base and false hierarchy.
13) Permission of elders is not required before anyone may engage in any Christian work or share in the activities of the church. Denying a member any active participation in prayers, songs, teaching, or exhortation is a gross usurpation of power contrary to the Bible.
No comment.
14) No man or group of men has any authority in the church by virtue of office which does not belong to other members.
Amen, and amen.
15) Nothing shall be done which affects the whole church without every member being heard before the decision is made. The quorum necessary for any action by the church is the entire membership. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur-- "What touches all, is to be approved by all." This is not a matter of passive assent or silence, but the result of active participation.
This is correct, and it is regrettable that many decisions are not made in the light of day, but rather in darkness and secrecy. Kudos to those leaders who seek not only the passive acceptance but the active participation of their brethren, and follow the example of the early church (read Acts 15 for a particularly enlightening account of a conference were apostles, elders, deacons, and members (all discussing as equals) came to agreement on what could have been a violent confrontation).
When I read these fifteen points, I shake my head and wonder how we wandered so far into the darkness when the truth was there in the light all along.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Ghosts In The Machine
Today the former Finnish president outlined his plan for the quasi-independence for the area of Kossovo, but it appears that (as is usual with such compromises) neither side is particularly happy. I'm sure that while NATO and the EU (and the UN) have bigger concerns than being the custodians of the downfall of the Serbian Empire (started just before WWI and reaching its largest size after WWII), it appears that for the second time in less than a year that a seemingly integral area of the Serbian empire is seeking its independence to follow the other former Yugoslav republics (Slovenia, already in the EU, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and new nation Montenegro as well). The compromise outlined by the UN would give Kossovo access to international organizations (like the UN and the IMF) and give it its own flag and control over its own international relations. It would, however, give great rights to the Serbian minority, including municipal control in its own area and the right to accept transparent transfers of money (i.e. subisides) from Serbia.
Unfortunately, as these matters seem to go, the Kossovar Albanians (who have 90% of the population) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with anything short of full independence. They see (rightly) that their own rights to self-determination are being shortchanged to benefit a bullying and abusive nation (Serbia) and its large and morally corrupt ally (Russia, who dislikes the precedent of Kossovo applying to, say, Chechnya and other areas that wish to break off from Russia). The Serbians, on the other hand, see Kossovo as an integral part of their empire, for Kossovo was the core of the Serbian empire until the 1300's, and the Battle of Kossovo in 1389 (a complete defeat that led to Ottoman rule over the Serbs until the 1800's) remains a pivotal event in Serbian history. No Serbian politician wants to go down in infamy as the person who surrendered Kossovo. Serbs have a long memory, and no one wants that eternal infamy.
So while one people seeks justice and the other remains tied to its own dark memories, it appears that neither side is to be happy with this deal, as it does point to independence for Kossovo, but without the status that the Albanians crave and the Serbs fear. The fact that Kossovo is currently a nation with a 50% unemployment rate, with aid (and expenditure by expatriates) accounting for some 30% of its Gross National Product, and with entrenched drug trafficking, prostitution, and copyright infringing interests (obviously not a good thing) makes the situation even more sticky. However, as development aid cannot enter the nation until its status is determined (being a UN Protectorate does not account for much), it appears that Kossovo will be granted near-independence soon, whether the Serbs like it or not. The demands of justice trump the bonds of memory.
Unfortunately, as these matters seem to go, the Kossovar Albanians (who have 90% of the population) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with anything short of full independence. They see (rightly) that their own rights to self-determination are being shortchanged to benefit a bullying and abusive nation (Serbia) and its large and morally corrupt ally (Russia, who dislikes the precedent of Kossovo applying to, say, Chechnya and other areas that wish to break off from Russia). The Serbians, on the other hand, see Kossovo as an integral part of their empire, for Kossovo was the core of the Serbian empire until the 1300's, and the Battle of Kossovo in 1389 (a complete defeat that led to Ottoman rule over the Serbs until the 1800's) remains a pivotal event in Serbian history. No Serbian politician wants to go down in infamy as the person who surrendered Kossovo. Serbs have a long memory, and no one wants that eternal infamy.
So while one people seeks justice and the other remains tied to its own dark memories, it appears that neither side is to be happy with this deal, as it does point to independence for Kossovo, but without the status that the Albanians crave and the Serbs fear. The fact that Kossovo is currently a nation with a 50% unemployment rate, with aid (and expenditure by expatriates) accounting for some 30% of its Gross National Product, and with entrenched drug trafficking, prostitution, and copyright infringing interests (obviously not a good thing) makes the situation even more sticky. However, as development aid cannot enter the nation until its status is determined (being a UN Protectorate does not account for much), it appears that Kossovo will be granted near-independence soon, whether the Serbs like it or not. The demands of justice trump the bonds of memory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
