Santa Cruz, California in the '70s teemed with alternative life-styles -- from flower-power hippies to punk, zen monasteries to hidden terrorist training camps for the Weathermen, Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) and others. Living in this coastal community in the '70s exposed much of its population to continuous pressure to experiment with life-style alternatives. These alternatives certainly included religious experiments as well.
Across town from the Wharf, over towards the University of California (Santa Cruz), a nationally known and respected church leader had helped found one of Santa Cruz's alternative churches -- part of the national "Shepherding Movement". Known as "Mission Street Fellowship", it drew a couple a hundred or so young people -- both long-haired hippies and straight -- and served as the eye of the local spiritual "hurricane" of spiritual renewal attempts. In fact, one of its most infamous Bible teachers for a time, Lonnie Frisbie, eventually became one of the Jesus' People revival's most well-known "characters", leading meetings in streets and homes where miracles took place, people were healed and generally "impossible" things happened regularly!
What made this church "alternative" acceptable may have stemmed from the teachings of its founder, Bob Mumford. Along with four or five other nationally known Christian teachers (affectionately known as "The Florida Gang"), Mumford insisted that the Bible required every Christian to submit to church leaders. This meant trusting that God would use these men to guide, direct and instruct whichever Christians were completely submitted to them.
Why would people accept this kind of control? This spiritual movement had astonished the world. Thousands of California's rebellious youth -- inaccurately dismissed as "drugged-out hippies" -- experienced radical, personal transformations overnight into respected members of the public! The central cry of their lives changed from "sex, drugs and rock and roll" into "Jesus!"
Many of these new converts had (deliberately) never taken any sort of responsibility for themselves, much less others. From being despised as societal "drop-outs", "Jesus People" began renting (and sharing) properties, forming businesses, running halfway houses to meet the needs of street people and generally creating more positive community environments wherever they lived. Not that they had truly joined the Establishment, but certainly they were "well on the way"!
Many of these young, young new Believers faced an understandably difficult transition. Having repented from lives of intentional rebellion, now they pressed hard into following Jesus Christ. To some degree, the Shepherding Movement sprang from a seed in the heart of many of its supporters -- a seed of desire to go as far away from rebellion as seemed possible. Submitting one's daily life to the local church elders as unto the Lord offered a clear, straight-forward means of submitting one's life to Christ.
Granted, the "Mission Street" elders were very young (twenty-somethings) but their combined immaturities were astounding. A close friend and fellow-student at a local Bible college had become a cell-group leader within this church. In frequent conversations, my friend tried to persuade me to join them -- this new "move of God". This was the future of the Church!
But it disturbed me that these young, congregational "elders" (none of them older than 25!) literally told their "sheep" when and where they could move, if they could change jobs, how much to donate to the church, what they could do for entertainment (which essentially meant going to church every night) and other "spiritual instructions". One day, I remember feeling my friend and his fellow "shepherds" crossed a line when I found they told more than one couple whether they could or couldn't have a baby.
One Sunday evening while visiting "Mission Street", I listened to its head elder tell a story illustrating what "true submission" looked like. His wife "starred" in the account, demonstrating a "true heart of submission". He'd been working late one night (preparing his sermon) when he called into the other room and asked his wife to go get him a coke. Not realizing the lateness of the hour, he had no idea his wife had already gone to bed. But hearing him call, she got up to find there were no sodas left in the fridge. Without discussing it with her husband, she got dressed again to walk several blocks to an all night market, bought a soda, and brought it home to him.
Personally, I felt disgusted at the servile attitude the young elder propagated. To me, the mature response on the part of the wife would be to pop her head into her husband's study and say, "Hon -- there doesn't seem to be any soda left in the fridge. Do you want me to get dressed and go buy you a coke?" That seemed a simple and respectful way for a husband and wife to relate.
But worse than that, the preacher intended the people to get the message that they needed to have this same "submitted heart" toward their church leaders as well. His message wasn't simply about "wives submit", but "all of you submit".
The Shepherding Movement pretty much died out in the '80s due to ridiculous excesses on the part of its leaders. But now, years later, I hear people again talking about "shepherding", "discipleship", "spiritual covering" and "submission". And it's true -- the Bible does tell Believers to "obey those who rule over you, and submit yourselves." [Hebrews 13.17] But this command has nothing to do with how "submission" is typically understood in our culture.
In most cultures, there is a very strong association between "submission" and "control". But the book of Hebrews wasn't written to our culture, but to a Mediterranean society 2,000 years ago! The intent of the words "obey", "rule" and "submit" (translated from the Greek) are different than the ones used in English.
The word "obey" (peitho) means "to trust, have confidence" in your leaders. The word "rule" (hegeomai) refers to a leader or person who has influence over others. And "submit" (peitho) means to listen to, to allow yourself to be persuaded.
When you put these three terms together, there's no sense of subjection (personal or "spiritual") or of control. The sense is more moderate, agreeable, then is implied by a chain-of-command mentality. The role of the true, spiritual leader is never to order or command, but instead to invite, persuade and influence.
In this new season of church people talking again about "shepherding", "discipleship", "spiritual covering" and "submission", every Believer must determine for themselves and their families, the difference between "submission" and "subjection". James 3.17 says that the wisdom which is from Heaven "is first holy, then gentle, readily giving way in argument, full of peace and mercy."
Here then, is the rule in respect to true, spiritual submission:
Spiritual submission is not control, but influence;
Spiritual submission is you, submitting yourself, to influence, never to control.
© by Emil B. Swift
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น