Tag: mutuality

Mutuality and Dialogue

On By missionmusingsIn dialogue, UncategorizedLeave a comment

A section of my book “Dialogue in Diversity.” The first very rough draft is basically complete and will be reviewed by my students in “Interreligious Dialogue class.

According to Martin Buber:

“The presupposition of genuine dialogue is not that the partners agree beforehand to relativize their own convictions, but that they accept each other as persons.”
Mutuality is not as commonly promoted as a Biblical virtue as some others. Yet, it is a strongly supported virtue, especially in the New Testament. Mutuality describes equal support. It implies two different aspects: Equal as position, and equal in interdependence.
Consider the figure below. The figure shows two people– A and B. In the top part of the figure is A and B in unequal positions. If they are communicating, A is “talking down” to B, The middle part of the figure shows the two in equal position, but not equal in interdependence. If they are in conversation, A is “talking at” B, with little communication back from B to A. The bottom one shows equalness in role and in interdependence. They have mutuality in conversation. A and B are “talking with” each other.
Mutuality applies to many things beyond talking.Figure x
The church has often struggled with battle between seemingly competing virtues of submission and mutuality. Typically, the church has tended to focus more on submission— submission to authorities, to parents, to husbands. Yet built into each of these is a mutuality. Jesus modeled and taught a form of leadership built on serving, not being served. Wives may be told to submit to their husbands, but husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church. And that form of love involves self-sacrifice and serving. It is hardly surprising then, that the most well-known passage in the Bible, Ephesians 5:21ff, opens with an overarching call to mutuality, “Submit one to another, out of reverence to Christ,” and then returns to the theme of mutuality with the body metaphor of Christ and the church.
The book of Philemon can be read as a book of Christian mutuality. Paul appeals to Philemon no to punish Onesimus, Philemon’s slave. Rather to accept him back, and even give him his freedom, and treat him as a full brother in Christ. Paul doesn’t actually order him to do that, for to do so would be to place himself as an authority. Rather Paul appeals to him as a fellow partner. The book sometimes is seen as a half-hearted rejection of slavery. However, it may better be seen as how Christian love and Jesus’ form of leadership is applied to a difficult situation, rather than law and hierarchy.
Many of the verses on mutuality are found as “one another passages.” There are dozens of these. A few of them include:

  • “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love…” (Romans 12:10)
  • “…Honor one another above yourselves. (Romans 12:10)
  • “Live in harmony with one another…” (Romans 12:16)
  • “…Love one another…” (Romans 13:8)
  • “…Stop passing judgment on one another.” (Romans 14:13)
  • “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you…” (Romans 15:7)
  • “…Instruct one another.” (Romans 15:14)
  • “Greet one another with a holy kiss…” (Romans 16:16)
  • “…When you come together to eat, wait for each other.” (I Cor. 11:33)
  • “…Have equal concern for each other. (I Cor. 12:25)
  • “…Serve one another in love.” (Galatians 5:13)
  • “Carry each other’s burdens…” (Galatians 6:2)
  • “…Be patient, bearing with one another in love.” (Ephesians 4:2)
  • “Be kind and compassionate to one another…” (Ephesians 4:32)
  • “…Forgiving each other…” (Ephesians 4:32)

These principles apply to Christians within the church. Some other statements of the same order were given by Jesus to His disciples– most famously, John 15:12, “Love each other as I have loved you.” But to what extent does mutuality apply to dealing with non-Christians, those outside of the church?

Love each other as I have loved you.” But to what extent does mutuality apply to dealing with non-Christians, those outside of the church?

On a strict, rather legalistic, level one could say that since these statement are given to the church for behavior within the church, it doesn’t apply to a Christian’s relationship with those outside of the church.

HOWEVER, mutuality could be understood as a logical application of the Great Commandment. If I love my Christian neighbor as myself, as Jesus so instructed and modeled, and my Christian neighbor does the same, then we relate to each other in a state of mutual love for each other. And if we do that then the other characteristics of mutuality must then also apply (we bear each other’s burdens, we encourage each other, we forgive each other, etc.).

But… the Great Commandment was not given to believers only to relate to other believers (‘love your friends, hate your enemies’). Rather it is for all followers of Christ to all peoples. We may love our families different than we love members of our church, and we may love members of our church differently than we love members of other church, and all of these different than we love strangers or enemies. Regardless, if our behavior to any group is unloving, then clearly we have failed to follow Christ. In like manner, we serve, forgive, encourage, and show hospitality, in a manner that is Christlike even for those outside the faith.

It is interesting to note that over the years mutuality has grown outside of the church, commonly influenced by the church. Sometimes they caught on and even went ahead of the church. Human rights grew out of Judeo-Christian principles where each person has basic rights that are not based on race, gender, nationality, status or achievement. The movement against slavery began largely in the church, and grew beyond the church as some churches sought to defend the practice. Servant-Leadership has now become popularized in business and governance, even while some churches defend unilateral submission.

Dialogue works best from a position of mutuality. We treat each others with respect and with equality. We are there to teach and there to learn. We are there to encourage and be encouraged. We are there to help the other grow, and grow oneself. There is no guarantee that the other will accept those terms. The other may draw away, or may seek to assume a position of authority. We have no control over the other, we only have control over ourselves.

Power Without Accountability, Part 3.

On By missionmusingsIn Christian LeadershipLeave a comment

My suggestion in the previous two posts is that the church has brought in the Power structures of history and surrounding social structures. Yet the church is meant to be unique in many ways. Among those, we are supposed to turn power upside down.

accountability-jokeWe have trouble with this. I have a(n) FB friend who has been challenging a guy named Creflo Dollar (a religious TV personality… heard of him… haven’t heard him). It seems this guy is trying to get people to send him money so he can buy an airplane (as a missionary struggling financially in ministry, and knowing many worthy missionaries in an even worse state than myself… this, rightly I believe, offends me.) Curiously, apparently the wife of this Mr. Dollar is saying that people that challenge her husband are under God’s curse. I don’t know the story first hand (repeating what I was told). But if that is true, that seems to be a serious unwillingness to have use of (or perhaps abuse of) power challenged.

But the church should really be different.

1.  It is to be countercultural. In other words, the church is not supposed to fail in the direction of mimicking local culture, but neither is it to gainsay the local culture. The surrounding culture typically supports a certain structure that defines the esteemed and the ignored. The church should empower the ignored, and honor the disgraced. It should also humble the esteemed and the powerful.

2.  It is to be mutual. The church is made up of members where the power relationships are multiplex and even. That is, church members are supposed to honor one another, bear one another’s burdens, exhort on another, receive one another, and submit to one another. Jesus modeled it, and we are to practice it.

3.  It is to be accountable. We all need people who hold us accountable. One reason I like the congregational structure in churches is that the power is shared by congregation, and is dispensed to spiritual leaders while holding them accountable. But for those that don’t have that structure, or where this accountability doesn’t work, there needs to be outside accountability. We once were part of a church without a good accountability structure.  The accountability structure ended up being police tacking a tax lien on the house of the pastor. While this may work, it is ideal that a better structure was in place. My wife was part of an NGO where the head began to wield power in a manner that was not healthy for its members. Fortunately, there was a board of directors who were able to hold the leader accountable.

EVERYONE needs to be held accountable. The greater the power, the greater the temptation to abuse, and thus the greater the need for mutuality, and accountability. Only God is not accountable to anyone else, and even for God, based on the prophets in the Bible, it appears He does not mind being questioned or challenged.

Power Without Accountability, Part 2

On By missionmusingsIn Christian LeadershipLeave a comment
The People Don’t Know Their True Power (and Responsibility to Hold Others, and Themselves, Accountable)

We see all of the problems with power in an ecclesiastical (church) setting so a good question would not only be “Why do we have problems with power in the church?” but also “Why do we actively perpetuate power that leads to problems in the church?”  Acknowledging lack of extensive expertise in this? I think there are some groups of reasons.

1.  Sociological. We are designed as (flawed) social beings. We are made finite with the need of social interaction and support from a broader community. This, in itself, would not be that much of a problem.  Bees and Ants work socially fairly well. Each have one system and hierarchy and each plug into that role naturally. Among social mammals… things don’t happen quite so easily, because different roles are not so clearly differentiated physically. So there is competition and power struggle. But even here, there is an instinctive process for determining hierarchy… not perfect, but relatively efficient.

With humans, we have the in-built need for community and social order but without the in-built mechanism for doing so harmoniously. As such, cultures develop to deal with these.. We are also flawed because our drive to organize is not strictly for the common good, but for collecting honor and things.

This would not be a problem, except that we tend to bring those same solutions in the outside world for establishing the church.

  • A metaphor for the church is the BODY. But we often use the social metaphor of BUSINESS.
  • A metaphor for the church is the FAMILY. But we often use the social metaphor of the MILITARY. (Although having been in the military, I can say that the church has no real understanding of that system, and will often come up with horrible mess justified on “military efficiency.”)

2.  Philosophical. Our relationships come out of our training in many ways. Much of our training regarding relationships comes out of philosophy. Philosophy is a good thing, but one has to identify what is true for the church and what is untrue and unhelpful for the church. Many of the teachings on social order that we accept without a lot of due consideration have more to do with the thoughts of Aristotle, Macchiavelli, and Confucius… not Christ. (Not that social disorder is desirable… a nihilistic or anarchistic structure. But community in the church needs to be built on a stronger foundation that power hierarchy).

3.  Psychological. We all seem to have a sense of our own unworthiness and weakness . At least most of us do. These, within the church structure, tend to mean that we seek the security of a place that is well defined by limitations on role and responsibility. Freedom is scary and vagueness of such roles and responsibility in mutual relationships is hard for many to get used to. Those who work with and in an organization of unpaid volunteers know the challenges of this. How do we work together as a team of equals, collaborating, in a common vision without money and employment as motivators? Many can’t embrace such a setting. Many ultimately seek to be led because it is more comfortable, while others seek power because of a felt “need” for that power.

4.  Historical. History can lead to issues regarding power. The Old Testament had a power hierarchy in its religious system (although I would argue that it was a relatively flat hierarchy  in its inception). But that history certainly played a part with the incorporation of a Christian “priesthood” in the church in the 4th century. The fight with the Gnostics and Marcionists and other groups led to a tendency to link authority/power and spiritual leadership through “apostolic succession”. Of course, the role of Constantine also had its part as aspects of the Christian religion were modified to fit into the pagan power structure tied to the Roman government. Additionally, Christianity “grew up” in the Roman power structure with the power structure of Charlemagne and the marriage of church and state. With a series of other governments, were continuous fights in that “marriage.”. It is actually, rather surprising that the church, in general, has been able to let go of civil control (often voluntarily) over the last few centuries.

5.  Biblical/Theological.  In recent years, some Protestant groups have tried to push towards a pre-Reformation understanding of the Christianity through undoing such things as “priesthood of the believer” or (among Baptists at least) soul sufficiency. They also tend to see submission as unilateral (citizen to government, wife to husband, servant to master, member to pastor) rather than mutual. Unfortunately, unilateral power/submission structures lead to abuse. There needs to be accountability, and such accountability is tied to mutuality.  Mutuality of service, humility, and submission is a very consistent theme throughout the New Testament. Perhaps the problem lies in the tendency to “theologize through proof-texts.” When one sees a verse that says to “submit” it is easy to see a unilateral relationships instead of seeing the broad-based theme of mutuality that is smoothly modeled and taught  throughout the gospels and epistles. Some preachers emphasize the importance of power.  But is that so important? Or does that reflect the value system of that particular preacher?