Growth
requires freedom
In the Age of Aquarius,
successful churches must encourage participation from members. This
can only be done by giving members freedom to express themselves and
come to their own conclusions. The key words are freedom and diversity.
It has been said that unless you learn from history, you will repeat
the mistakes of history. History clearly shows that growth and freedom
go hand-in-hand. Following are a few examples:
- In the first
two centuries, the Christian movement experienced an explosive growth
that turned it into a living, vibrant spiritual and mystical movement.
The movement had virtually no organizational structure and encompassed
a diversity that attracted followers from all walks of life. When
the organized church was formed, it quickly eradicated the diversity,
and it defined an official doctrine that essentially aborted the true
mission of Christ (for more on this, see the Teachings
section and this question.
- After the revolution,
the United States experienced an unparalleled economic growth, mainly
because of unprecedented freedom and opportunity.
- An American
engineer was once asked to explain why the American helicopter industry
was so far ahead of its European competitors. He said: “In Europe,
anything that is not expressly allowed by law is automatically prohibited.
In America, anything that is not expressly forbidden by law is automatically
allowed.” Therefore, the American engineers had more freedom
to develop creative solutions.
From fear to freedom
These historical examples become more significant when we consider that
the Age of Aquarius is the age of individual freedom and the age of
the Holy Spirit. How can a church hope to attract followers in the new
age unless it embraces the energies of that age?
If you want a church to grow, the organization must allow room for individual
creativity so that its members can express their Christhood! If you
want to build the community of the Holy Spirit, you must give that spirit
the freedom to blow where it listeth!
To fully embrace the opportunity of the new age, a church must go through
a similar transformation as the one that occurred in the early days
of the Christian movement. Many of the early disciples thought they
should preach only to the Jews. In other words, in order to receive
the teachings of Christ, a person had to meet certain outer requirements.
One might say that Christianity was given conditionally.
One of the most pivotal moments in early Christianity occurred when
the disciples realized, through the descent of the Holy Spirit, that
it was in accordance with God’s will to preach Christianity to
the gentiles. This was a dramatic shift in people’s mindset. The
disciples now started preaching the word to anyone who was willing to
listen, and therefore they started giving the teachings of Christ unconditionally.
Is this the real reason why the early Christian movement experienced
such a rapid growth and spread to so many different parts of the ancient
world? Consider how successful Christianity would have been if the early
disciples had preached only to the Jews. How far would Christianity
have spread beyond the borders of ancient Israel? Would Christianity
have been a major world religion today, or would it have been a small
Jewish sect?
The need for a new organizational culture
When you apply this perspective to the organizational culture of many
of today’s churches (Christian and non-Christian), it becomes
obvious that many churches do not allow the kind of freedom enjoyed
by the early Christians. Many churches are not giving forth their teachings
in an unconditional manner. Instead, they tend to define conditions,
saying that people have to fulfill certain requirements before they
are worthy to receive the teachings and become members of the organization.
For example, many churches require their members to fulfill certain
outer requirements, such a baptism, not drinking alcohol and the like.
While these are often reasonable requirements, a rigid church culture
uses them to create a standard for judging the members.
Such a culture cannot freely give forth spiritual teachings and allow
people to follow those teachings according to their own personal, inner
direction. Instead, church culture sets up an outer standard for how
church members should live their lives, and anyone not following the
standard is subjected to various forms of reprisals (from being looked
down upon to being excommunicated). Those who follow all of the outer
standards to the letter often acquire a “holier-than-thou attitude”
which is in direct opposition to the mindset of the Aquarian age.
One can raise a number of arguments for why such a restrictive and judgmental
culture might have been necessary in the Piscean age. However, as we
move into the Age of Aquarius, it is necessary to consider if this culture
has become outdated?
The Age of Aquarius is an age in which the individual is meant to attain
direct, inner communion with God. In other words, each person is meant
to have a direct link to God and to the Ascended Host. In past ages,
humankind had not risen to a level of consciousness in which the general
population was ready for direct communion.
Therefore, most people needed an outer structure that could serve as
a mediator between them and God. In the new age, people are meant to
move beyond the need to have anything positioned between them and God
(and their higher selves).
The question for any church becomes: Is the current organizational culture
set up to help people build a direct contact with their higher self,
or is it, as so many Orthodox churches, better suited to making people
co-dependent upon the organization?
Many churches have an organizational culture that is dominated by a
strict set of rules. Some churches have started moving away from these
rules. However, has the organizational culture been purged of the mindset
that resulted from a fear-based and rule-driven culture?
Is it likely that an organizational culture based on fear and control
will attract people in the new age? Is it likely that, in the age of
freedom, people will be willing to accept an organizational culture
that is dominated by strict adherence to outer rules and a tendency
to judge those who do not follow the rules to the letter? Is such a
culture creating a barrier of entry that is similar to the early demand
that only Jews were allowed to receive the teachings of Christ?
To be successful in the Age of Aquarius, a church must move beyond a
fear-based and judgmental organizational culture. This is not simply
a matter of removing the outer rules. It is a matter of embracing a
mindset that is suited for the age of freedom. The Law of Free Will
is the ultimate law of this universe. If you accept the Law of Free
Will, you must accept that people have a right to use spiritual teachings
as they see fit. You simply cannot set up a standard for how a spiritual
person should be or behave.
Most importantly, you cannot allow any kind of judgment of people or
their way of interpreting and using spiritual teachings. No human being
knows the spiritual attainment of another person. Therefore, how can
anyone judge what is right for another person’s path?
If an organization, meaning both leaders and members, would make an
effort to move beyond the old judgmental culture, vast new opportunities
would open up. If an organization can take advantage of the opportunity
offered by the Age of Aquarius, it can become a major factor in the
new age. If the organization does not embrace a new culture, it is likely
to remain small or lose members.
A new organizational structure is needed
A “spiritual organization” is almost a contradiction in
terms. The organization is started to promote spiritual teachings, however
any organization run by human beings tend to take on a life of its own.
The desire to maintain and expand the organization often becomes a goal
in itself, and this goal might even eclipse the original goal of spreading
the spiritual teachings. This is exactly what happened to Christianity
when the orthodox Church was formed. Within a few centuries, the organized
church had eradicated the diversity and spirituality of the early Christian
movement, and thereby it had effectively aborted the spiritual mission
of Christ. (For more information, click
here.)
The Christian movement moved from having no organized structure towards
a highly centralized and control-based organization. Many modern churches
have an organized structure that is highly centralized and, to a large
degree, based on control. If a church is going to be successful in the
Age of Aquarius, it must move beyond this centralized structure. In
the age of freedom, a centralized and control-based organization is
not likely to attract large numbers of followers.
Make room for both organizers and creators
A previous discourse explains that
a successful organization needs both organizers and creators, and this
has important implications for the growth of any religion:
- In the past,
the teachings of many religions were watered down until the original
content of the teachings was lost. To prevent this from happening,
a religion needs a strong base of balanced organizers who can maintain
the purity and integrity of the teachings in their original form.
However, it is essential that these people remain balanced and avoid
falling into the trap of wanting to control how the teachings are
given forth or used.
- To attract large
numbers of followers, a religion needs a strong group of balanced
creators who can preach the teachings and relate them to people’s
present level of consciousness and present needs. It is essential
that these people remain balanced and do not fall into the trap of
watering down the teachings so the original message is lost.
This points to an organizational structure that has two spheres:
- The
inner circle. The mission of these people is to preserve
the teachings and make them available in their original form. The
original teachings will serve as a lodestone for the entire organization
and for its followers. This part of the organization needs to be run
by organizers who have a flair for detail.
- The outer
circle. The mission of these people is to reach anyone who
is receptive to some aspect of the teachings. The stepped-down teachings
will serve as a point of first contact with the organization, and
they will help people get anchored on the path offered by the organization.
As people rise in consciousness, they can gradually begin to take
advantage of the teachings in their original form. This part of the
organization needs to be run by creators who can see the big picture.
For example, in
a Christian context, the inner circle could research what has happened
to the original teachings of Christ and seek to restore those teachings
by any means available. The goal is not to defend current church doctrine,
but to truly find out what Jesus taught.
The outer circle could take the message of Christ and relate it to people’s
everyday experience in today’s society. The goal would be to explore
what Jesus would say to people in this age and how his message could
help modern people overcome the challenges they face (these challenges
are obviously different from the challenges people faced 2,000 years
ago).
If a church would embrace such an organizational structure, the inner
circle could form a stable foundation around which the outer circle
could revolve. The inner circle would provide stability and balance,
while the outer circle would provide adaptation and growth. This would
give many members a sense of dedication and mission, because they could
now see how they could express their personal Christhood and fulfill
their mission while working within the framework of the church.
Give the teachings unconditionally
To fully embrace a paradigm that allows spiritual teachings to be given
unconditionally, it is necessary to consider who owns spiritual teachings?
Currently, many churches act as if the organization owns the spiritual
teachings given by the founder of that church.
Such organizations tend to think that they have a right to control how
the teachings are given forth and used. A prime example is the Catholic
church which began to act as if it owned the teachings of Christ. The
Catholic church soon started tampering with the teachings and it withheld
much of the original source-material.
Does any church actually own spiritual teachings? As stated earlier,
all true spiritual teachings originated from the spiritual world. If
anyone can claim ownership, it should be the Ascended Host. However,
why not consider that the teachings actually belong to the world; they
are a world spiritual heritage!
This might open up for the idea that an organization should not try
to control how the teachings are used. What an organization should do
is to preserve its teachings in their original form and make sure they
are always available to anyone who wants them.
This points to a new way to look at the role of a religion. A religion
must have a core organization with the role of making the teachings
available without conditions. Thereby, people can use the teachings
as they see fit, as long as they don’t claim ownership of the
teachings. Such an organization should probably be completely independent
of any church.
For example, one could envision a non-denominational organization charged
with restoring and publishing the original teachings of Jesus and early
Christianity. Any church could use the material published by this organization,
but no church can own or control the teachings. A church cannot suddenly
start withholding certain elements of the teachings. It can choose to
build its own doctrines, but it cannot impose those doctrines on the
organization that is charged with preserving the teachings in their
original form.
A church can define its own organizational structure and rules. However,
a church cannot prevent the formation of other groups that use the teachings
in a different way.
Decentralization of the organization
In the Age of Aquarius, a spiritual organization cannot successfully
impose a rigid, centralized structure, as did the orthodox churches
in the Age of Pisces. Instead, it must create a true sense of a spiritual
community.
Any successful community is based on freedom and diversity. A church
must not seek to control the teachings or people’s use of the
teachings. It must simply offer people the teachings without telling
them how to use them. Give people a smorgasbord without telling them
what to eat.
This can be accomplished by allowing the formation of fraternities or
organizations that are affiliated with the religious organization. For
example, because of the misuse of power from orthodox churches, many
people have a negative attitude towards churches. These people might
be attracted by an organization that uses the teachings without calling
itself a church. Other people might want a more formal or organized
church, and such people could form churches based on the religious teachings.
Once again, the diversity of the early Christian movement might provide
inspiration. A variety of churches and gnostic organizations were based
on the teachings of Christ, yet there were many differences between
them. Eventually the orthodox church came to see such differences as
a threat to its power and control. However, it was the diversity that
created the explosive growth of the Christian movement.
The orthodox Christian church made it a goal to expand and strengthen
the organization itself. In reality, the true goal of a spiritual movement
must be to spread a certain spiritual idea or teaching. If this goal
becomes subverted by the need to strengthen the outer organization,
then the organization has become a goal in itself instead of being the
means to an end.
In the Age of Aquarius people are not likely to buy into the idea that
there is only one true church. Therefore, a church must embrace a paradigm
that makes it possible to spread the spiritual teachings without requiring
membership of a particular organization! A church must choose whom it
will serve, the outer goal of a worldly organization or the inner goal
of the Ascended Host.
Back to religious change main page.
Back
to top
Copyright
© 2003 by Kim Michaels |
