Infectious Elitism
By John Gavazzoni

Of course, it is our lack of love for one another that is the ultimate source of division within the community of believers, but penultimately, snuggling up close behind, tightly so, lies the cunningly supportive spirit of elitism. It comes in many flavors: denominational (ancient, modern, and post-modern), nondenominational, interdenominational, trans-denominational, ecumenical, non-ecumenical, parachurch, monastic, revivalist, pietistic, scholastic, mainstream, hardly mainstream at all, and reformist.

Among the more pietistically-inclined, it comes in on the coattails of genuine "times of refreshment" from the Lord. In its on-the-coattails stage, it may not be easily discerned, except often, and particularly so, by those who, looking back, have realized that they have been, even repeatedly, involved complicitly. Those, understandably, have been sensitized to its presence. It's a creepy, creeping thing, certainly unsatisfied to remain as a mere coattails pest, it lusts to infect the whole body.

When the infection reaches a serious stage, one of the noticeable symptoms is an attitude of admiring self-awareness, individually and collectively. What has come to be by then, is what I like to call a religious mutual-admiration society. The attitude is the equivalent of thinking there are different levels of being made to sit in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus. But let's get our thinking straight. When, for instance, Paul treats the matter of who has been made to benefit in and by the ascension of Jesus to the right hand of the Majesty on High, he includes the whole assembly (representative of the universal body of Christ) he is addressing. All have been made to sit at the same level (there's none higher, to be sure); no gradations of sitting up there.

For those with whom I often fellowship, and with whom I often share in the ministry of the Word, it is particularly important for us to note that when, for instance, the apostle Paul testified that, as an example of the believer, he pressed toward "the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus," that he did not mean that part of his epistle to be only for the notice of a "company" within the larger community. Though, at any given time, the Holy Spirit may pressure the spirits, and impress the hearts, of some more keenly than others, nevertheless, his example was meant for the whole assembly. If our spirit is right, when we feel such pressure of spirit, and impress of heart, we will rejoice that the prize of which Paul writes is for the whole ecclesia.

The apostolic attitude, meant to be shared by all, is: "look up, ALL of you, my brethren, to where God has made us ALL to sit with Christ, and though some of you may see the goal set before us more clearly than others, even you will not see with final clarity, until we ALL see together, for have you forgotten that it is written, "that you might be able to comprehend WITH ALL THE SAINTS...," and "until WE ALL attain to the perfect man, to the stature of the fullness of Christ."

While my critique thus far has been aimed more toward the pietistically-inclined separatists who eschew mainstream religiousity, I must also target that more outward and blatant form of elitism that relishes pomp and ceremony, priestly garb, church office, and spirit-numbing repetition of ancient liturgies carried out by those who have come to see themselves as a special class of Christian. With some exception, it's a religious side-show. It's professional-class self-aggrandizement. It's the people serving the ministry, rather than the ministry serving the people. We've forgotten that "minister" means "serve." Older expressions, no longer familiar to younger believers, such as "a man of the cloth," and one who "stands behind the sacred desk" (pulpit, for you young-uns) have exposed our infamy.

Beware of religious titles, brethren, that support the notion of offices within the church. There are descriptions in the New Testament that distinguish between modes of service, but the idea of "office" is actually foreign to the function of the church as the body of Christ. There are differences of service, not of office. Laying aside for the moment, problems related to translation, there is no office of bishop, or cardinal, or elder, or overseer, or even pastor, for that matter. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers did not, in the early church, occupy offices. It is wrong to refer to "the office of the apostle, etc." These are service occupations. The administration of the church of Jesus Christ is meant to be an economy of production by means of service.

As servants of Christ and His church, we serve so as to produce: serve so that there is always an overabundance of the life of Christ in and among us all. We are not a consumer-based economy. In the natural world, when a nation has more consumers than producers, it is headed for economic crisis. Consumerism is a curse. The attitude of the members of the body of Christ must not be to pray, "that (we) might consume it upon (our) own lusts," but so that there is never a lack in the church.

Should not the similarity between in-house references such as "the honorable senator from....," and "His eminence, the Very Right Reverend..." strike us with dismay? Good heavens, we out-do the world with such pretentiousness. Peter, on an occasion of referring to Paul, did not write, "my highly exalted and fellow member of the apostolic college, Paul..." How sweet it must have been for Paul to hear that Peter had written concerning him, "our dear brother, Paul."