Christianity Is a Reign No Matter How You Slice It
Christianity evolves constantly. Its current shape depends on what region or historical time period are we considering. At the time of the Roman Empire, it started from imitating Jewish self-organization manner all around Ecumene’s space.
A few centuries later Christianity adopted Roman traditions and became a good society managing tool for the Empire. During The Age of Enlightenment, it evolved to something more democratic.
Protestantism, after all, implies individual studying of the Bible. Still, the ruling aspect inbuild into the base of Christianity can’t be changed unless we will abolish the essence of Christianity.
Today, Protestant Christianity in the U.S. tries to demonstrate its potential to give people personal freedoms. It’s dictated by the environment that surrounds it. Nevertheless, if they would abolish the New Testament’s fundamentals, nothing will be left from Christianity. That means that you can’t turn Church into just a good friends club.
Christianity is an organization of religious people. You can’t gather together people without giving them rules of commonly accepted conduct. You can find behavioral rules in every society whether it’s a common large society or a small, alternative culture within a larger culture.
So, what’s the problem then? I don’t say that it’s necessarily a problem. I just call to think everyone about what is good for them personally. Do you want to be ruled by someone?
There are enough authorities above us: parents when we are children, teachers at school, bosses at jobs, police officers on the streets, and so on. Are you confident that you want to have more rulers above you? We can’t do without the establishments listed above, and yet, many people would like to get rid of them altogether.
Anarchists come up with an idea to minimize any power that is ruling other people’s lives. Remote jobs are considered as something desirable for a lot of people since it gives you more personal freedom. It’s not that easy, though, to transform all the world into a place where no one has any authority above them. However, can you live a full life without a religious organization?
I don’t deny that religious organizations provide you with a lot of perks like access to like-minded people among whom you can find a couple to marry, a social environment where you can hang out once per week or even more often, and other things. In fact, some people have a need for someone authoritatively telling them what to do with their lives. And I don’t mean it in a negative sense.
But, as I’ve said, Church is not only an interests club. All these perks come up with a cost: you have to obey. This power over your life is limited very vaguely.
There’s no common behavior codex for all Christians. Newcomers may not realize where they get themselves involved. They don’t have the ability to learn all the rules of a Church when they join the community being attracted by the exterior side of the religion that they can observe.
As time goes they learn what does it really means to be a part of the community, and even if they don’t like the rules, leaving the community can be hurtful. The commitment aspect of the religion will press on them to make them stay.
Besides, the rules may change with time, since the rulers may decide to do so. The congregation’s behavior rules are not decided in a democratic way. Essentially, you trust your wellbeing to a few people, in a best-case scenario.
In the worse case, it’s only one person who can turn your life into a nightmare if he or she will lose their mind. That’s one of the reasons why monarchy is not the best way of organizing society.
A king may happen to be insane in the first place or go crazy at some point while everyone depends on him. You can leave your job, in case your boss is a crazy person. What are you going to do if your spiritual leader is gone mad?
It’s a rare case when a laity easily leaves their community if something goes wrong. People perceive the community as if it would be their family. In that manner, their leader is like a father or a mother for them. It’s both too dangerous, and not necessary for our lives to put ourselves at such a risk.
Modernizing religion to make it more democratic and innocuous would make a difference, but would it be still Christianity? This religion is based on the New Testament idea of obedience, and submission.
I had a negative experience with a pastor who happened to be a woman. After that, I was visiting other congregations to give Christianity another chance. I was looking at other female pastors with suspicion, in anticipation of control, and vindictiveness from them in case I will show a lack of loyalty.
But, later, I’ve realized that the issue is not in choosing between patriarchate, or matriarchate, or the combination of both ruling models, but the issue is rather in ruling per se.
I’m trying to be freethinking and not to be biased against Christianity. However, that is what I’m thinking at this point. I don’t need a chief of a tribe over me.
I want to be my own chief. I don’t want to have a shepherd either. Shepherds carry a stick for both purposes to defend you from wolves and beat you if you disobey. Look at the pictures of religious authority figures in Roman and Orthodox Christianity, specifically on what they hold at their hands.
I think it’s also compatible with what I read in my New Testament.
