Daywatch - Intercession for the New Day :: DAYWATCH JULY 28TH 2009

Main Page

Photos

Blog admin

This Month

Month Archive

September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009

Year Archive

2010
2009
2008

Main Page » Blog admin

Previous:	DAYWATCH JUNE 28TH 2009
Next:	Reply by Janet Locke to July 28th DAYWATCH

DAYWATCH JULY 28TH 2009

by Roger Haydon Mitchell on Fri 31 Jul 2009 11:01 PM BST | Permanent Link | Cosmos

We did pretty well with comments on the blog this month – the subject of hierarchy certainly seemed to strike a chord. Can I point out that this is hardly surprising given that it lies at the heart of the mindset change that we are attempting to negotiate? The correspondence on the blog particularly picked up on hierarchy in relation to the nature of God and the normality of hierarchy in everyday life. If you haven’t had the chance to look at the comments and discussion on the blog, here are excerpts of both. If you are reading this again on the blog, please forgive the repetition.

On hierarchy and God:

“I firmly believe that there is clearly and strongly demonstrated 'a sovereign hierarchical authority over the world' through Gods' love of the world, but it is erroneous to suggest that he is the same as the devil, no, no, no, the devil is trying to copy the way Father does things, but because he has no love, he can only offer a distorted image of rule and authority, hence, a distorted rule and dominion and a forced submission. Is that not the case?”

In response:

“I think, if I read you right, you are suggesting that God has sovereign power over the world but that he does his dominion through loving people into his submission rather than the devil who doesn't love while exercising dominion. I think …that perspective might be coloured by the invasion of our worldview by the empire idea. Are we so sure that God has a sovereignty that is based in hierarchy ('...for I am among you as one who serves')? Or is there any element of that idea that might have its origins in the empire system? Personally I find a lot of resonance with the conclusion of Roger's analysis and wonder whether our real question here might not be ‘what kind of power does God have/use if it is not a sovereign hierarchical authority over the world as demonstrated by the devil and the world's empires?’”

On the normality of hierarchy:

“I confess I am struggling a bit with what you put out. Are you equating hierarchy in human social relations with empire? It comes across as that. And due to the fact that I read evolutionary biology and psychology as well as history I find myself confused in that equation. Hierarchy is normal in human group relations of cooperation. Generally for a group to make decisions regarding the whole, someone assumes leadership. It may be temporary. It may be of little change in status except for the fact that the others become followers (at least at that moment) but it is a hierarchy, a recognized one, if only for a time (think chairman of a board vs. a CEO). Hierarchy can become institutionalized and perhaps that is what you are referring to.”

In response:

“Actually I think that temporary hierarchies which are subject to change (like goose formations) are probably fine in lots of circumstances. Most of our work in this world provides examples of hierarchies that are at least efficient if not wholesome... and this is a not-yet-new-creation world! But this is not really our beef here, surely. As I understand it we're talking specifically about sovereign hierarchical authority. I.e. there is a difference between the recognition of contingent leadership in human relationships and the self-assumption of power over others when there are real opportunities to lay our lives down and prefer the others. Perhaps the best window on how we should relate to hierarchy is the path to the cross. There is no sovereign hierarchical authority there. Yes, the powers do their thing but Jesus gives himself away. In so doing he summarily robs them of their power without using any of his own and presses through sin and death to be resurrected. Now that's what I want to follow, particularly when I engage in everyday life with hierarchies that are about shoring up social/political/financial authority over others.”

If you would like to join in the web discussion, go to www.daywatch.eu and follow the instructions there. If you have any difficulty, please don’t hesitate to email us at admin@passion.org.uk and one of the daywatch team will get in touch with you and help you negotiate the blog. It is very easy once you get the hang of it!

It is our conviction that the renewal of our minds about the nature of God and the way of his kingdom is his direct intention for us in response to the three generations of Holy Spirit visitation through which the church has passed and is his desired result of the movement of intercessory prayer and repentance of the last two decades. If this is part of what it means for God to have his church back then it must be the focus of our ongoing prayer and be manifest in our daily life in the world.

For the sake of our ongoing prayer, reflection and the reconfiguration of our life in the world can I emphasise the following. Hierarchy of roles in a limited practical situation for the purposes of getting a job done may well be OK. However if a major mistake has been made in ascribing hierarchy universally to the outworking of power and authority then even the ‘normal’ use of hierarchy may need to be set aside for alternative ways of getting the job done in order to avoid strengthening the oppressive impact of an otherwise satanic system. Make no mistake; it IS the assumption that God exercises his undoubted power and authority in a hierarchical manner that is being challenged here. As I commented on the blog,

“If God's rule is hierarchical sovereignty over people, the way of the kingdom is hierarchical sovereignty over people, which is what Christendom has been all about. But if God's rule is life laid down loving among us, then the way of the kingdom is this self-emptying love in our daily life in the world and it is this that is the nature and basis of God's power and what being church is all about.”

BLESSINGS

ROGER AND TEAM

Posted to:

Blog admin

Comments

Post a comment

Re: DAYWATCH JULY 28TH 2009

by Cheryl on Sat 01 Aug 2009 04:21 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Roger and co.:

Some further thoughts. I just finished reading Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies". Written in 1988 but quite current to our world today, Tainter posits that societies increase in complexity as a way to manage energy supplies. Those supplies could be human labour including slavery, water, increased food calories due to intensive agriculture, fossil fuels, or alternatives.

Hierarchy is part of complexity. You could think of bureaucracies as they expand and become increasingly dense with an increase in management levels.

Most of human history has been about simple societies with flatter sociopolitical structures (and much less energy to manage). Complex societies are the unusual situation in human history but it is what most of us are used to.

Societies collapse when there are declining returns on investments in energy production and sociopolitical complexity. In other words, each society reaches a point where there is less pay off for costly investments to move forward, often with a concurrent increase in complexity. At that point, the society must find a new source of energy (colonization is one way to do that) or collapse. Collapse moves a society to a new level, less hierarchy, flatter social structure, more local in outlook and reliance, smaller population. Leadership then becomes more like those geese formations, temporary and based on a skill set.

The church typically has evolved into complex social structures. Some groups have tried to avoid this, such as the Brethern, and sometimes they have succeeded, for a time. Certainly, the rise of mega-churches has led to an increase in complexity, hierarchy, and demand for energy (more human labour in the form of staff and volunteers let alone the cost of maintaining large buildings). And of course, the Catholic Church is a model of complexity.

It seems to me when we look for a flatter social structure in the church we are also looking for ummm, less church. That is, less large scale, complex structures, and more local, flatter social models. Certainly the discussion on Martin Scott's blog indicates that a number of folks have moved and are moving in that direction.

Interestingly, for the world to navigate the multiple environmental crises that face us, we may need to head toward smaller, more local, socially flatter lifestyles. On the other hand supporting large scale solar installations in the Sahara to power Europe tends to need more social complexity.

The Internet tends also to push in both directions. Increased social complexity is needed to manage the energy needed to support its structure (its eats lots of electricity). But it also, at least in part, supports smaller, less complex polities emerging with voices, sometimes beyond their local situations.

I guess the issue is to figure out which way God is leading/pushing. Certainly, Jesus' model was for a fairly flat social polity, which the early church did its best to adopt with some modifications for the increased energy of large numbers of converts.

While Tainter does not say this explicitly it appears that hierarchies in one social organization tend to support hierarchies in another in order to avoid collapse (collapse cannot happen where there are peer polities). Thus a hierarchical church has often supported the imperial aspirations of complex governmental administrations.

Given the changes in the way we must live regarding creation, I suspect moving to a more simple social structure is the way to go. And that will be an interesting challenge to much of the church.

Cheryl

hierarchical authority

by helene on Sat 01 Aug 2009 06:59 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Just a thought and moment of stepping into a hebrew mindset of hierarchical authority..... Kinsman redeemer! The hebrew hierachy follows the pattern of first born son is leader the kinsman redeemer of the family (by this I include wider extended family which would be a community to us). The first son is given to God (first fruit) The son also becomes a nation....

As ultimate head and kinsman redeemer the role of authority is to lead by serving and having authority to redeem his family .... for example should a member of the family die their families are provided for. Also there is the authority to passing on inheritance blessing to redeem. The kinsman redeemer has a double blessing of his first born son and first born grandson. The grandson receives a double blessing from his father and grand father. Jesus being the ultimate son with ultimate authority of redemption who follows the servant shephard heart of a kinsman redeemer!!!!