The Democratic Church

Have you ever contemplated how much of the American political perspective has crept into the American Church?

Think about it. What is the fundamental premise of American politics? Well, okay, perhaps that's too hard. But what are some of the key components? Well, there is the concept of the "inalienable rights" of the individual. There is the "one person, one vote" concept. There is obviously that whole "liberty" thing -- you know, freedom from tyranny and all. Oh, we've also worked in a "separation of Church and State" thing and a natural dislike for authority. (We consider it a "necessary evil", so to speak, so we tolerate it, but we don't like it.)

However, it has not always been thus. In earlier times there was a different synthesis. The first immigrants to this land had a radically different view. From their perspective, there was a top-down structure. There was the State. There was the society -- that is, the local town or city. That local town or city was built around a primary building -- a church. And there were families. Where did individuals come into this? Well, sure, they were the primary components, but their role was not self-interest, but family, church, society, and State. For instance, when a family moved to a town, the father didn't think, "What can I do to make a living?" No, his approach was "What can I do to contribute to this society?" A person was identified with their family. Families were identified with the Church. Did you know that before the American Revolution the State used to collect the tithe? And it wasn't optional. It didn't matter if you were part of the local church; you paid anyway. In turn, the State paid the ministers and maintained the churches and such.

Enter the American Revolution. "No Sovereign" was a flag flown in protest to England's heavy hand. In the name of "their Creator", the Colonials rebelled and threw off the yolk of the British king. We know their heroic stories. And what we most admire was their individualism, their maverick nature. But it started to leak from there into American Christianity. Just as it was admirable to be individualistic in politics, it started to become vogue to be individualistic in Christianity. No more of those musty old creeds and confessions. No more catechism. All that structure was too much like slavery. No, no, freedom of religion was what they wanted, and by that they aimed for individual religious experience. It wasn't what you knew, but how you felt. Theology and doctrine wasn't so important as whether or not you experienced God. The goal wasn't to "make disciples" or teach them everything; the aim was to have them "make a decision for Christ". The facts about which they were deciding weren't as relevant as the fact that they decided.

Today, of course, we've come to see this largely as normal. We don't see "church" as something to which to be committed. (In too many places, "family" is a bit too much of a commitment.) We aren't part of a church; we go to church. And, look, we've got options, right? I mean, there are lots of churches to choose from, so we go around picking the one we like and if it eventually doesn't thrill us anymore, well, there are other choices. We are, after all, not part of a church; we to to church. What is most important? Well, experience, of course! We still largely reject creeds and confessions. We don't care much for a lot of doctrine and the like. Oh, hey, how does a guy get to be pastor in most churches? Well, it's a little bit of a process. Usually a "pastor search" committee goes out and rounds up some good candidates. These candidates come and preach at the church and then everyone votes on who will be the next president ... oh, wait ... I'm confusing my stories here ... pastor ... yeah, that's it.

Funny thing. I don't find any of this in my Bible. Sure, we are called as individuals, but we are portrayed as part of the structures in which we live. We are husbands and wives, fathers and children, slaves and masters, neighbors. We are under a governmental structure. Personal enrichment doesn't occur by grabbing what we can, but by giving all we can to those in our structures. And nowhere do I find an account of a pastoral search committee that went and found folks for the local congregation to vote on. (Where does that come from? Oh, yeah -- American democracy.)

I have to wonder. It appears that the American Church has conformed deeply to the world of American politics. Is that actually what we're supposed to do -- conform to our world? Or could it be that there was a wrong turn somewhere back there? I ask because I'm thinking that the Church ought not be a democracy for individuals, but a theocracy where individuals submit to the Master. But, hey, maybe that's just me.