There is no doubt that Teen Mania leadership is authoritarian and controlling. Even the fans will admit that, though they say it’s in service to a good cause. However, can top-down control ever really effect heart transformation? Can spiritual growth really come from a forced obedience to a set of external rules?
Lately, I’ve been struck by how un-controlling Jesus and his followers are in the New Testament. In fact, in Matthew 20, Jesus says that in His Kingdom, we don’t control or lord it over one another.
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.
Wait, what? We aren’t supposed to exercise authority over each other? We aren’t supposed to tell each other what to do and how to do it? Well then, how are we to act? He goes on…
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
In the evangelical world, we have this strange habit of talking about servant-leadership, but never actually doing it. We just take the top down model of leadership from the world, put Christian terms on it and pretend that is what Jesus meant.
But really, Jesus saying His Kingdom is opposite of the world’s. He is saying, “You see the hierarchical way they do it? Yeah, its not like that in my house.” We don’t get to control others, make rules for others, or force obedience from others. That is what the world does. But that is not what we do.
If anyone did have the “right” to control others, it was the Apostle Paul. Yet, he stated emphatically that he did not control others or demand obedience from them.
Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. 2 Cor. 1:24
He also cautioned against installing church leaders that were overbearing:
Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing…Titus 1:7a
Even when Apollos disagreed with Paul’s advice to him, Paul did not accuse him of being rebellious or disobedient. He deferred to Apollo’s conscience and decision:
Now about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers. He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity. I Cor. 16:12
God’s Kingdom does not consist of strict obedience to extra-Biblical commands given by other Christians. It just doesn’t. And no contorting of Scripture can ever change that.
Let me say it again: The requirement of obedience to man-made, extra-Biblical rules has NO place in the Kingdom.
(PS – Don’t forget the caption contest is open until midnight tonight.)
12 comments:
I just wanted to say, I LOVE this post.
I’m surprised there weren’t any comments.
ThanksSeptember 7, 2010 11:40 PM
heartsfire said…
I had nothing to add but *LIKE*September 8, 2010 10:58 AM
dan said…
I’m a little surprised that this one hasn’t gotten more response. 🙂
“Authority” is such a weird, sticky issue. More so than I think a lot of people give it credit for.
For example, the concept of “authority” in the military is and has to be completely different than the concept of “authority” in the civilian world. Or the church. Or the concept of “authority” in terms of sovereign nations, or municipalities, or even at your place of employment.
However, I think it’s clear that there are biblical principles that can speak into each of these scenarios, even if they are all slightly different. And as to your dissection of how the church appears to try to exercise the same authority structure as a corporation, or the military, or whatever…that’s awesome.
Of course (being the devil’s advocate here…those of you who know me know where I stand), what is morally “wrong” with establishing a program with its own authority structure that is completely elective? Of course we’ve hashed and re-hashed the issue of TM’s fuzzy definition of “elective”, as well as their apparent posing as an agent of the church, but let’s say those issues didn’t exist. Let’s say that TM somehow made it clear that they aren’t exercising church authority, and also made it simple and painless to resign. Let’s say the safety issues were addressed appropriately and there was effective measures put in place to screen applicants to ensure that they are healthy enough/a good fit.
Would it still be “wrong” to create a program such as the Honor Academy that requires participants to live under much more stringent rules than their ordinary lives? Would it be bad to obey the authority of such a program?September 8, 2010 3:42 PM
joyG said…
Nice question, Dan. I’m curious to see what others respond.
I love that RA highlighted this. So much of the church & ministries like TM, are based on control. What are we afraid of? That the Holy Spirit might actually inspire and guide his children to do new, innovative, even dangerous things?
It reminds me of parents who don’t let their kids do harmless things like blow bubbles in the house. “Oh no! Someone might slip!” Ok. But sometimes life is worth the added effort of potential mess or extra cleanup. It’s like modern playgrounds. They’re so risk-free they’re no fun anymore.
Jesus was definitely more of a “laissez-faire” leader. However, I think that’s where the Holy Spirit takes over. He uses the framework of God’s word to direct the nuances of decision-making in daily life. We don’t need a strict guide book because we have an internal compass that points us to the heart of God. That’s where the “gray” areas come in.
“In the evangelical world, we have this strange habit of talking about servant-leadership, but never actually doing it.” -Ohhhh, so true! Overbearing spiritual leadership does not actually empower or grow disciples. It keeps people claustrophobic in their gifts and potential. It kills life rather than invites the dynamic zoe life Christ offered. Let freedom ring!
P.S. When people are grounded, really grounded, in a foundation of grace, they have a funny way of seeking to honor God without being told what to do.September 10, 2010 1:53 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
“Would it still be “wrong” to create a program such as the Honor Academy that requires participants to live under much more stringent rules than their ordinary lives? Would it be bad to obey the authority of such a program?”
Great question, Dan. My intial thought is that – it depends on the consequences for “disobeying” that authority/rule structure. We can never equate man’s rules to God’s rules. I think while it might be possible to have the scenario you described carried out in a healthy way, I think its unlikely, at least over the long term. But, honestly, I’m not even sure anymore that it is possible.
And what is the value in extra-Biblical rules anyway? Especially when they are not something that springs from your conscience? Everything in the NT seems to be saying that now that the veil is torn, we have no man between God and us. So why do we keep putting one there?September 10, 2010 3:31 PM
dan said…
We’ve discussed this a little over at the forums, and where I’ve landed at is that it all comes down to culture.
TM’s culture, regardless of what they think, makes people feel like failures if they don’t “measure up”. The consequence of being made to leave the Honor Academy is nothing compared to the “consequence” of feeling like you don’t measure up as a person, as a very close friend of mine who was dismissed was made to feel. TM, of course, would either wave this off as an isolated or rare mistake, or they would circle blame right back around to her. However, anecdotally I’ve found that this is typically the case. Interns who fail are made to feel that they are defined by that. That their worth is defined by that failure.
So that’s what I feel about the consequences. Being sent home or campused or whatever can really just mean “Sorry, you did an action, here is the consequence. But you are still precious and a superstar in God’s and our eyes.” TM just hasn’t proven that they are capable of perpetrating that. Quite the opposite, actually.
As for your second part…September 10, 2010 4:34 PM
dan said…
Personally, I do see value in it in the same way I see value in physical exercise. I subscribe to the theory that our emotions, our mind, our body…all of these things benefit from being challenged. Using the body as an example, physical fitness is a result of very minor, barely noticeable “damage” to muscle fibers and connective tissue. You cause this “damage” through exertion and challenge. Then, as your body repairs itself, it becomes stronger, more flexible, healthier, etc. The benefits are enormous.
Push it too far, and you hurt yourself badly. You don’t benefit, because you’re forced to sit on the couch for weeks or months while you recover; if you recover at all. However, after years of appropriate training, you end up reaching a level of physical fitness that allows you to push your body further than you ever thought you could.
Of course, like anything else, this can become an obsession even if you’re working out correctly. That’s unhealthy as well for obvious reasons.
Mental and emotional discipline, in my opinion, can benefit from the same theory. Press yourself too much, too soon, too fast…you hurt yourself; maybe beyond repair. Or you set yourself back months or weeks because you weren’t careful. Likewise, you can become obsessed with this process, or you can define yourself by it, or weigh your self-worth by it.
These are the dangers of TM. TM often throws people into physically, emotionally, or mentally stressful situations for which that person is simply not prepared or was never meant to be. Add to that the fact that the TM culture places significant value on people who ARE ready, and you have a very unhealthy situation where interns are challenging themselves in ways that they shouldn’t, and if they fail, they leave feeling that their worth as a person is somehow compromised.September 10, 2010 4:41 PM
dan said…
PS – I’m not in any way implying that people who are “ready” or otherwise excel in an environment at TM are superior. In fact, that’s my point. The fact that our minds go there suggests a serious flaw in how we’ve been indoctrinated. “It’s not for everyone.” has come to be a backhanded way of saying “Not everyone’s good enough for this.” That’s…totally not cool.September 10, 2010 4:45 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
dan – can you explain what you mean by “emotional discipline?” Then I’ll know if I agree or not. 🙂September 10, 2010 4:46 PM
dan said…
Sure. 🙂
As a human being, I have to believe that I can control my emotions. I’ll use my own father, one of if not the biggest influences in my life, as an example.
When my dad was younger, he was a very angry person. The smallest thing would throw him into a blind, violent rage. Often, objects accepted the brunt of his visceral reactions to this emotion, but sometimes, yes, people did too.
If you met my dad today, you’d laugh at what I just typed. He’s one of the kindest, friendliest, long suffering people you’ll ever meet. It took years of maturing, working through his own emotions, disciplining his thought life, controlling his actions, and for those of us who are believers, it also took quite a bit of prayer, but over time…he conquered it.
Now, of course, he gets angry like anyone else I’m sure. And inside of his heart, I’m certain that his past demons still sneer at him a bit and try to get back in. But he’s come to a point where he not only controls his reaction to emotional stimuli, but the emotions themselves. He’s learned over time to actually reduce anger in his life.
Emotional discipline says that we are not animals, nor are we plants. There is stimulus, and there is response, but for us…there’s something in between. We can choose what that response is. I can choose to love you, even if you treat me with disdain. I can actually change my proverbial heart.
However, I don’t believe for a second that this ability is instantaneous the second we’re aware of it. I believe that we first become aware of it, then it takes effort to mold it. To get to the point where we don’t react with hatred, or anger when it’s not appropriate. To believe that we don’t have to “just fall out of love” with our spouses, or that we really can be happy for someone else when they get something that we really wanted.
That’s emotional discipline. 🙂 To reference it to ESOAL and what I believe TM is trying to accomplish, it’s the ability to act in contrast to our own instinctive emotional response. To run into the burning building despite our fear of fire, etc.September 10, 2010 5:23 PM
dan said…
Some people may call this “emotional maturity”, and that’s valid. However, “maturity” sort of suggests that this happens naturally, with no effort required. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t learn to control your emotions, if you don’t put forth an effort, you’ll find yourself a 35 year old person with the emotional capacity and control of a teenager. We all know someone like that, I’m sure. 😉September 10, 2010 5:29 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Dan – I would probably call what you’ve described “self-control.” With regards to your father, I’d be willing to bet that it wasn’t that he used willpower to change himself – it was God’s grace working inside his heart. His cooperation with that over time likely resulted in the behavioral changes you now witness.
The bottom line for me is that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, not a fruit of the law.September 12, 2010 2:41 PM