I think that we overcorrect when we attempt to totally deconstruct "religion" in the name of Christ. Or, to be more blunt, I think that when we do so we are being as selfish as those we are rebelling against.
You have to think about it in terms of Service vs. Power. As Rod's memorable message said, Christ's Kingdom is supposed to be an "upside-down kingdom." It is ruled by those who serve. But that means that we must be willing to be ruled.
When I read the article, what I see is somebody saying, "I'm hurt and upset because my reputation, and the reputation of Christ, is slandered by sinners who call themselves Christians." That's a good, valid, appropriate feeling. But his response basically boils down to, "I'm never going to give anybody the power to hurt me that way again." Similarly, he rightly desires to have a life which follows what Christ taught. But by checking out of "religion," he sets himself up as the only judge of what that life is for himself.
You have to be vulnerable. You can't get away from it. God suffers because of the actions of others, and so will we. Moreover, God submits himself to others; we see that in Christ's example in how he prays to and talks about the Father. So in our lives we have to be vulnerable to the sinful actions of others, and we have to be in submission to others. Not just to God - but to others around us.
Our terror in submitting to somebody else comes from that demand we have to make sure we're safe. But our job is not to ensure that we are safe. It's to love one another, and that is inherently an unsafe activity. Yet the happy paradox is that when we follow the Biblical model, we are safe (more or less). The Biblical model is the "upside-down kingdom." The church is ruled by those who serve. The body is shepherded by those who most selflessly love.
The Biblical model has a power structure, but it is dominated by those who serve vulnerably, not by those who wield power and position. Paul claimed to have authority over the many churches he founded (1 Corinthians 4, especially verses 14-21), but that authority was based on the fact that he loved them and felt a deep responsibility to care for them (verse 15).
The early church had a government. Jesus said that Peter was "rock on which I will build my church." When divisive questions were raised, the "elders" (including Peter) were given the power to answer it (Acts 15). Paul had authority in the churches he planted. John calls himself "the elder" in his last 3 epistles. It seems obvious that there was a heirarchy, but it was a heirarchy of love and service, not of power and self-protection. We should strive to create such a religion, not selfish attempt to protect ourselves by checking out of all religion. |