Resonate writer, Len Hjalmarson, recently mused on the Evolution of Heirarchy, discussing how factors like access to technology and information are forcing us to change the way we think of authority structures. No longer do we live in a world where only one person knows what to do—-now many people have access to facts that help one decide what decisions should be made and how.
The human world was once a fairly unconnected place and the way “things were run” reflected that. For example, the Old Testament nation of Israel longed for a king, as opposed to the more recent instance in the United States, where “getting a king” was purposely and passionately avoided. The more fluid our communities become, the more we find heirarchal authority structures struggling to fit. Hjalmarson writes
There is paradigmatic shift occurring. Hierarchy limits options because it
limits connectivity, and we live in an connected world. Information that has to
flow from the top down through rigidly defined chains has limited effect.
Information that is randomly distributed and readily available creates
collaboration. These more open structures are by nature empowering and generate
change that works from the bottom up as well as from the top down. And change
and transformation and inclusion are implicit in body life.Boundaries in traditional settings are used to determine who is in and who
is out. In new communities boundaries are not protective walls but are porous
and become meeting places. In living systems boundaries are where information is
exchanged and new relationships take form. Boundaries .. edges.. are the places
of emergence and the frontier for engagement.
The article compares the New Testament picture of Body life, as expressed in passages like Ephesians 4, with the way the world is transitioning away from heirarchal structures and into more fluid networked bodies.
The networked church has more in common with the life we see in the book of
Acts than does the hierarchical church.William Bridges writes,“Networked technology takes power from the head of
an organization and distributes it to the hands.”This practice can be tainted
with paternalism. Empowering does not mean giving power to people who had none,
but rather recognizing and freeing the power that is there. When we are “in
Christ” we are already empowered, but frequently our structures have impeded
rather than invited the participation of the gifted community and have thus
constrained the Holy Spirit and limited growth.
How does the above fit within the distinctly different egalitarian and complementarian frameworks, if at all? Is the movement away from heirarchy the result of human rebellion or is it a move into a more sane and beneficial way of organizing social groups? Is a complementarian able to agree with the above perspectives and still be a staunch complementarian, and/or is an egalitarian unable to approve of heirarchal organizational structures at all? And how much of our underlying assumption of what “good authority” looks like (be it heirarchal, fluid, or otherwise) color our interpretation of what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 5 and other similar passages?
Molly-
You asked: How does the above fit within the distinctly different egalitarian and complementarian frameworks, if at all?
Oh hey, this has nothing to do with marriage, so my answer is “not at all.”
I liked the article and sounds like where I and many of my peers sit in the church universal. Most of the heroes/heroines in my spiritual life don’t come from my particular denomination, which is really what this article is discussing (denominationalism, that is).
You see, I go to one of these suspicious Emerging churches that is thoroughly orthodox in every way but doesn’t fit the mold of traditional denominational churches. There is little, if any, interchurch hierarchy among sister churches within the network, but there is a strong intrachurch structure to keep the congregation from going crazy, as all churches should have (just so no one misunderstands me).
Is a complementarian able to agree with the above perspectives and still be a staunch complementarian?
Absolutely.
and/or is an egalitarian unable to approve of heirarchal organizational structures at all?
Only an egalitarian can answer that!
And how much of our underlying assumption of what “good authority” looks like (be it heirarchal, fluid, or otherwise) color our interpretation of what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 5 and other similar passages?
Everyone has a filter. Some filters are more objective than others.
Good thoughts and thanks for sharing. Marilyn, this was a really insightful comment:
So, I see a business organization with a network structure as more akin to a soft comp marriage than to an egalitarian marriage. If we’re discussing a single organization, then the issue to me is the degree of hierarchy, rather than the presence or absence of hierarchy. I see an anology to redemptive movement within the complementarian model, as opposed to a redemption of the institution of marriage by abandonment of the complementarian model for the egalitarian model.
Good thoughts. Obviously I see things a little differently, but I really hear what you are saying here.
…
I guess what I’m asking, albeit badly because it didn’t really get across at all–harharhar!—- is how much our assumptions about the “best gov. forms” influence how we interpret Scripture.
I guess this really resonated with me because I was pre-disposed to think hierarchy was best. In other words, there was no way I would have ever gone for an E interpretation, because it didn’t exist as an option in my mind in the first place.
I’d been taught in Bible College a very hierarchal view of authority, so upon marriage, naturally assumed that Scriptural admonitions to women fit neatly within a God-ordained hierarchy.
It was only years later that I would begin to examine those same Scriptures while asking questions like, “Is the hierarchy one of Roman/Jewish culture, not necessarily God.” “Is God’s way not always compatible with hierarchy and/or is God’s way one that supercedes hierarchy?”
When I found that those questions did not blow up Scripture (they did change the way one might interpret Scripture, but they did not “not fit” with Scripture), I really began questioning my C assumptions.
Hi Molly, Saw your post on the student’s blog over there and followed it here. Haven’t seen you in awhile. Are you still in Alaska?
Lydia
Sorry, I forgot to tell you where I saw you :stamati anagnostou posted on my blog yesterday and it was his blog I noticed your comment. I always thought you were a young woman full of life, loving each day and enjoying people. Years ago I put away the mocking tone that I had gotten from various friends, who used to make fun of anyone who was not just exactly like them. I try to post compliments on others’ blogs and not participate in any conversations that will not build up the other person. I appreciate that you do not gossip on this blog. So much useful information is lost when there are posters who seem to exist to mock and derride the authors. God bless you in your ministry.