My introduction to the Bible was through the Old Testament.
When I was a child I read aspects of the Old Testament like a story. I never understood some of the prophetic books. I enjoyed the first bit of Daniel and gave the other bits a miss. Of the first five books, I obviously didn’t bother too much about Leviticus, but was engrossed with Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy.
The real gold mine of quality narrative material would be found in the books from Judges to 2 Chronicles. Story after story of power, family feuds, national warfare and all that kind of stuff was good for someone like me. When people dismiss the Bible, they really miss out on quality stories. They really do.
One of the stories I remember sticking with me strongly was the story of the end of Samuel and the beginning of King Saul. (Worth reading 1 Samuel 8, but also worth reading that and all the chapters up to 13.) Reading it, I remember the heartbreak that Samuel had over the people desiring a king to rule over them like the other countries. I also remember God helping Sam out by telling him that the people were rejecting Him and not the prophet.
The decision of the tribes of Israel to plump for a new system of rule was an outright rejection for the rule of God. They didn’t want it, and to be fair, it’s not the first time they rejected the direct rule of God. You’ll recall despite Moses’ encouragement, when God appeared to the people after the Red Sea episode they preferred Moses to talk on His behalf, because they were too afraid to deal with Him.
In fact the very act of sin is a rejection of the direct rule of God, preferring something or someone else instead. So this was fairly typical human behaviour.
I was reflecting on that when considering the life of the church in the light of Jesus Christ. In His earthly ministry, He warned us not to go about giving each other titles and lording it over others as was the custom of the Gentiles. He expected us to relate to each other as brothers and sisters. He expected us to relate to each other as children of God, with the only authority being our Father.
He expected us to realise that with His mission, He was repairing the breach and opening access so that men and women could directly engage with their Heavenly Father and the only Mediator required would be Him. This was a great equaliser – this created the proverbial level playing field. The new-believer had just as much access as the veteran. There was no hierarchy established on earth, the only positions that mattered was The Father, The Son and the children of God who were all now part of the royal priesthood.
Over 2000 years later, have we taken on board that lesson? Over 3000 years after the whole Saul and Samuel issue, have we really learnt from the rejection of the direct rule of God?
If we have, why is there such a reliance on a one-pastor-lead system of church? Why is there such a big deal about titles and managerial/leadership hierarchies prevalent in a lot of the expressions of church?
If we have, why is there still a clergy/laity mentality prevailing even in some church sections which would never suggest there is such a mentality in existence?
If we have, why are the Body of Christ seemingly not enabled to see all-member ministry in operation in the life of the church?
If we have, why is there an expectation that 80% of church work is conducted by 20% of its membership?
If we have, why is the concept of a genuinely Spirit-led experience of church life so rare? Worse still, why do some equate Spirit-led to things being done the same way as it’s always been done which is a virtually a spectator approach to church gatherings?
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
dmcd
Life With CD 