THIS SERIES HAS BEEN CONTRASTING two spiritualities—two ways of being human—which are operating side by side, and sometimes intermingled, in our culture and minds.
Rather, it's the practical top—number two—who really wields the power.
Each of these spiritualities has its own world-view, its own values, and its own practices.
In the previous three posts, I've outlined two contrasting practices: belief and skepticism, and pointed out how they relate to the priest/king spirituality and the emerging, natural spirituality respectively.
Belief and skepticism are complete opposites, opposed at almost every point, but that isn't always the case.
Sometimes the two spiritualities do the same thing, but in completely different ways.
Both, for example, build community, but their approach is entirely different.
Priest/King spirituality, the authoritarian model, builds community as a hierarchical structure, designed to serve the chain of command.
Let me remind you, before we go on, that you should not expect to see any "pure" examples of a hierarchical community in our current culture.
Every community has elements of both spiritualities, and the labels are names for extremes that seldom, if ever, occur in the real world.
With that in mind...
-
A purely hierarchical community exists to serve the top of the hierarchy.
The top may be the owner of the business, it may be the shareholders (another name for the owner of the business), in a religious context it may be a god, in a military context it may be the country.
A purely hierarchical religious charity, designed to help the poor for example, will nonetheless see helping the poor as a form of service to its god.
A purely hierarchical military leader who institutes a set of policies to protect the locals in a foreign land from terrorists will see this service to the locals as a part of his service to his country.
In a purely hierarchical family structure, the wife and children serve the father—his work, his leisure, his life—although his work may be viewed within an even larger hierarchical community: a political party, a church, a corporate world—or his allegiance to the family patriarch.
In each case, the entire community—an army, a church, a business, a charitable organization, a family—exists solely to serve the top of the hierarchy: whether that's the owner, the stockholders, the country, the god, or the father.
If the owner dies, the business closes, unless another owner can be found.
If the stockholders all sell, or suddenly cease to exist, the corporation dies, unless new stockholders can be found.
If the country is dissolved, its army ceases to exist, unless it can find something else to place at the top of the hierarchy.
If the hierarchical religious community stops believing in its god, it dissolves, as well.
If the father dies, the mother goes in search of a replacement. -
This service translates into a chain of command, each layer serving the layer above.
Each level in the hierarchy has more rights and privileges than the level below, and fewer rights and privileges than the level above.
Middle management gets paid more, has nicer working conditions, and more perks than the supervisors on the factory floor, but less than the vice presidents.
The associate pastor has more perks and more power than the assistant pastor, but fewer than the head pastor.
The mother has more power than the children, but less than the father.
The lords have better houses than the peasants do, but not so good as the King does.
And, in each case, each level, by serving the agendas of the level above, serves the top of the hierarchy. -
One result is that decisions get made at the top.
The more important the decision, the higher up it is made.
A higher level always gets to decide just how important any decision is.
The entire organization follows the strategies, agendas, and whims of the highest functioning level of the hierarchy.
In many cases, this level is not the theoretical top—it's not actually the stockholders, or the country, or god, for example.
Rather, it's the practical top—number two—who really wields the power.
It's the board of directors or the CEO, the president of the country, the pastor of the church, who gets to decide what the top really needs or wants, and how to go about it.
Occasionally, in a hierarchical family, it's the mother who gets to decide what the father really wants. -
On the personal level, this means that nearly everyone has two roles.
They have a dominant role which is the set of behaviors they exhibit toward those below them in the hierarchy.
Those below them are, in the priest/king model, parts of themselves, extensions of their own personality. They may ask anything of them, demand any amount of loyalty or sacrifice, and take credit for anything they do.
On the other hand they have a submissive role which is the set of behaviors they exhibit toward those above them in the hierarchy.
In the submissive role, they become extensions of their superior's personality, completely subservient to his or her goals and agendas. They must accede to every demand, give unstinting loyalty, make any sacrifice, and give up any credit for anything they do.
It's easy to see, in the description above, how a hierarchical community reflects the world-view and values of the priest/king model.
Remember, I'm describing a purely hierarchical community, which seldom, if ever, exists in practice.
So, if you found yourself saying, "Yeah, I know what he means, but they aren't that bad," you're right.
Most communities in real life are a mix of this model and the egalitarian model which comes out of the emerging, natural spirituality.
Which I'll take up next...
