{"id":3676,"date":"2014-09-05T14:52:56","date_gmt":"2014-09-05T21:52:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/?p=3676"},"modified":"2020-01-09T04:17:48","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T11:17:48","slug":"3676","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2014\/09\/3676\/3676\/","title":{"rendered":"Three Models of Church Membership"},"content":{"rendered":"

(This is the 3rd<\/sup> post in my series \u201cThe Bloggernacle as\u00a0Public Sphere\u201d.)<\/p>\n

In this post I would like to use J\u00fcrgen Habermas\u2019 Transformation of the Public Sphere<\/em> to distinguish between three different types of active members which we find in the church today.\u00a0 Roughly following Habermas, I will call these three kinds of church membership the feudal, critical and consumer models of church membership.\u00a0 I say \u201croughly\u201d because Habermas\u2019 account leaves the reader with the impression that there are only two models – feudal and critical \u2013 since the consumer type of society just is its re-feudalization.\u00a0 Although he does not explicitly equate feudal and the consumer societies with each other, I think his failure to explicitly disentangle the two is not just an incidental shortcoming of his book, but a strategic move aimed at furthering his own critical perspective.\u00a0 I would also suggest that many people within the bloggernacle (myself included) do the exact same thing.<\/p>\n

The table below briefly describes the differences between these 3 models:<\/p>\n

\"Picture1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

To recap, Habermas largely defines the public sphere<\/a> in terms of three conditions: 1) anybody can be included in the critical discussions that are to govern society, 2) all people within any such discussion are to be treated as equal, and 3) no topic is beyond critical discussion.\u00a0 To the degree that a society does not live up to, or at least strive for these ideals, it is not democratic (critical) but feudal (regressive) in nature.\u00a0 By these lights, consumer society certainly is the re-feudalization of society.\u00a0 There are, however, significant differences between feudal and consumer societies, and these differences are directly relevant to the differing conceptions of church membership that we find in the bloggernacle.<\/p>\n

The Feudal Model<\/strong><\/p>\n

The feudal model of society is that which is found within most traditional and scriptural settings.\u00a0 It is a society that is based in the authority of lordship, royalty or some such divine investiture that is independent of skill, competence or experience.\u00a0 The closest thing to a qualification for such authority figures is personal righteousness. Within a feudal society, the will of the righteous authority figure unabashedly rules over the people in that the latter are morally obligated to actively acclaim and obey that which the former commands them from his pulpit.\u00a0 If I ask, \u201cWhy should I obey my lord?\u201d the prompt and satisfactory answer is \u201cBecause he is my lord.\u201d\u00a0 The policy making procedure within such a society is neither inclusive, nor egalitarian and openly so:\u00a0 If you love your ordained ruler, keep their commandments.\u00a0 Many forms of censorship are not only tolerated, but morally obligatory as in the case of blasphemy, etc.<\/p>\n

The Critical Model<\/strong><\/p>\n

The critical model of society is, according to Habermas, at the very heart of democratic society.\u00a0 The moral foundation of this society lies not in the will of authorized persons, but in reasoned principles and laws that can be articulated and endorsed by all.\u00a0 Authority, within such a society, is simply shorthand for and thus limited to the expertise that a person has with regard to the relevant principles and laws.\u00a0 Within a critical society the ruling authorities are no different than any other person in that they too must obey the principles that we, the people, actively agree to in round-table discussions and debates.\u00a0 If I ask, \u201cWhy should I obey this principle?\u201d a legitimate answer will make reference to impersonal principles and laws rather than to mine or anybody else\u2019s position within society.\u00a0 The inclusivity and egalitarian nature of critical society are aimed at a mutual love in which there are no asymmetries of power.\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, censorship is totally out of bounds, thereby diluting the sin of blasphemy.<\/p>\n

The Consumer Model<\/strong><\/p>\n

Unlike the models above, the consumer model of society is based in the satisficing<\/a> of wants and needs, and as such has little if any moral grounding.\u00a0 Whether a person has authority \u2013 be it sacred or profane – is totally irrelevant so long as the person gives us a sense of complacent satisfaction. \u00a0This lack of moral obligation to any authority or principle frees people up to \u201cshop around\u201d for the authority figures and principles that suit them best.\u00a0 There is, however, a very duplicitous nature at the heart of consumer society.\u00a0 In it, the people are actively manipulated by a powerful and elite minority who also seek their own private interests and thus use various forms of advertising media in order to disguise the asymmetries of power that actually exist. \u00a0In order to satisfy their own desires and needs, the rulers of consumer society present a false image of the world as inclusive, egalitarian and free of censorship \u2013 like unto a critical society – an image that stands in stark contrast to the exclusive, inegalitarian and censor-laden reality in which the people actually live \u2013 like unto a feudal society.\u00a0 The ruling elite merely claim to obey and serve the people rather than the other way around.\u00a0 Their use of advertising and public relations leads people to think that they are freely making their own decisions in pursuit of their own interests, when they are actually being manipulated into choosing a rather limited set of options which has been pre-determined by the interests of the ruling elite.\u00a0 Love means something akin to \u201cI\u2019ll be there for you as long as it works for me.\u201d\u00a0 Censorship is not a moral principle, but is instead a gloss for the strategic manipulation of the consuming public by the ruling elites.<\/p>\n

The Church and the Bloggernacle<\/strong><\/p>\n

Within the church we find examples of all three models as they apply to church membership.\u00a0 Although I think most within the bloggernacle would agree that the consumer model of church membership is wrong, I do not, in this post, want to argue about the merits and demerits of each.\u00a0 Rather, I would like to focus on the tendency of those within the feudal and critical models of membership to actively and systematically neglect the differences which exist between the other camp and the tacitly maligned consumer model of church membership.\u00a0 This tendency is all too acute within the bloggernacle due to the underrepresentation of the consumer model within the \u2018nacle.\u00a0 I would further suggest that it is the relative lack of moral foundation at the core of the consumer model which is not only responsible for its underrepresentation within the bloggernacle (why blog and argue about individual consumption?), but also for the aforementioned tendency to associate all who disagree with it.<\/p>\n

Progressive Bloggers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Progressives within the bloggernacle, I suggest, most closely approximate the critical model of church membership and as such see asymmetries in power as an immorality which ought to be fought against.\u00a0 Like Habermas, they see little difference between such asymmetries as they exist within a feudal or a consumer mindset.\u00a0 Accordingly, progressives are tempted characterize the differences between the other two models as one of degree rather than kind.\u00a0 Yes, there are differences in degree<\/a>, but there are also differences in kind which ought to be acknowledged.<\/p>\n

Unlike the consumer model, there most definitely is a moral foundation of sacred authority that is openly advocated within the feudal model of church membership.\u00a0 This stands in contrast to the manipulative disguise of authority figures within the consumer model.\u00a0 Whereas the feudal member intentionally obeys authority figures out of a moral duty to the Lord and those who speak for and represent Him, the consumer member accidentally obeys authority figures out of a kind of misinformed self-interest.\u00a0 The former encourages the conscious discipleship to and public acclamation of church authorities, the latter passively absorbs those teachings and directives that square well with them as they perceive their situation.\u00a0 The former openly accepts the transformation of official statements as being for the good of the general membership, while the latter is suspicious of any such manipulations since they further the interests of the church leaders rather than the average member.\u00a0 While neither the feudal nor the consumer model of church membership critically constrains its ruling elite, only the latter can be said to blindly follow and obey since the former consciously and willfully follows and obeys.<\/p>\n

Conservative Bloggers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conservative members within the bloggernacle, I suggest, most closely approximate the feudal model of church membership and as such see disloyalty within the church to their sacred authorities as an immorality which ought to be fought against.\u00a0 While this perspective alone encourages the feudal member to lump the critical and consumer models together \u2013 since neither one of these is based in a loyalty to church leaders – there is another more politically motivated reason for lumping the two together.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the right-wing politics of the free market also tempts conservative members to dismiss critical members as dissatisfied consumers who \u201cought\u201d to pursue their religious wants and needs elsewhere.\u00a0 This move allows the conservative members to not only fault the critical members for the lack of loyalty that they share with the consumer members, but also to further fault them for their lack of the consumer rationality that they believe \u201cought\u201d to characterize such a lack of loyalty.\u00a0 Consequently, the conservative members are more able to sympathize with a disloyalty to sacred authorities in the pursuit of personal preference than they are with a disloyalty in spite of personal preference.<\/p>\n

In the same way that lumping the feudal and consumer models together ignores significant moral differences, so too, lumping the critical and consumer models together also ignores very similar differences.\u00a0 The critical members do not<\/em> seek their own individual wants and needs, but instead seek what they believe to be best for us all \u2013 a complete symmetry in power relations.\u00a0 Thus, they seek to cut through the advertising and public relations used to disguise the private exercise of fallible power within the church in order to make room for the publicly shared and therefore impersonal truths and principles of the gospel.\u00a0 Similarly, the critical model of church membership is based in the active agreement and common consent of the general membership rather than the passive absorption that characterizes the mere lack of objection at the heart of the consumer model.\u00a0 Thus, while neither the critical nor the consumer members pretend to be absolutely loyally to or satisfied with the church authorities, strictly speaking, only the latter can be said to lack any concern for the well-being of the church and its membership since the former is very much morally motivated by a sense of love and devotion.<\/p>\n

Recap<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are at least three distinct models by which we can understand church membership: feudal, critical and consumer.\u00a0 The differences that set these models apart from each other are not only matters of degree but differences of kind in that each model structures the goodness and rightness of behavior differently.\u00a0 Because there are three rather than two models, any attempt to lump \u201cthe other kind\u201d together, will result in confusion and misrepresentation.\u00a0 The critical and feudal members are both wrong to characterize the other as the blindly manipulated or dissatisfied consumers of the church leaders\u2019 words.\u00a0 Neither side can be characterized in terms of the consumer model and for the same reason: each one has an active morality at its heart that sets it apart from the passive and individualistic non-morality of the consumer model.\u00a0 The only reason why each side is tempted to construe the other in consumer terms is due to each type\u2019s failure to live up the moral standards of the other.\u00a0 The truth is, however, that neither side is necessarily less moral, per se \u2013 only differently moral.<\/p>\n

This forces us to confront a more pressing question: Which morality (feudal, critical or consumer) mostly closely models God\u2019s morality?\u00a0 Hopefully, any disagreement with my predictable answer to this question will not distract from the argument presented within this particular post.