The following feedback by David Skousen provides an excellent reason as to why there does need to be organization -- but from the bottom up, rather than the top down as it is now.
That is where the triple-couples idea comes into play (www.triplecouples.com), but that is only the first level beyond the basic unit of a family. It goes from there to four sets of triple-couples working together, and then several sets of that level working together -- all voluntarily entering into those unions for the purpose of the greater strength that can be had by working together with more people. But, again, the responsibility and sovereignty is from the bottom up, rather than the top down.
Sterling
----- Original Message -----
From: David Skousen
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: Neighborhood Evangelism
What a remarkable point-of-view. The pendulum does swing wide against established religion. Problem is, you get more accomplished as groups, even large groups such as a nation, than you do as neighborhoods acting as religious city-states.
Granted, we all lose liberty by committing to an organization. Like turning left instead of right, the whole body must go the way the head decides. If the whole body divided into local tissues to do whatever they decide, the body would die.
Where do you draw the line for independent action? At the cellular level? Then each one of us would become 60 trillion amoebas; achieving the unity of a human body would be impossible.
This simply illustrates the problem I see with neighborhood gatherings separate from a larger religious context.
Dean Mansfield has an article (referenced on GreaterThings.com) about angels supervising various religions. I'm anxious to read it. Why? Every spirit in a body is unique and yet has a genereal attraction to one or more religions or no religion ("no religion" is technically impossible, for religion‹in reference to an individual‹means one's philosophy of life, whether atheistic, pagan or whatever his belief system is at the moment).
It seems reasonable that unique souls would gravitate, in a more general sense, into cooperative groups. They would give their particular group a name, and probably claim that their group is superior to the rest. We all think "our" way is best.
Some would say "no church" is best. These folks have a flair for individualism. But if all were that way, we would sacrifice the advantages of organized action. Loosely knit, we could do good projects like help the poor, but to have a larger influence would require a more impressive hierarchy.
I'm not defending wicked religious leadership, but only the virtuous principle of extending one's power to do good through organization. Our nation would be a sitting duck for any tyranny without uniting the towns, counties, states and then federal arms of power. If it is a wicked government, that is NOT the fault of organization, but the fault of wicked men within the hierarchy.
God organized ancient Israel. They chose to be irresponsible when it came to administering the gospel of Love. They wanted a king‹more hierarchy and less responsibility. God GAVE IT to them as a teaching device that His way (which included a national church, by the way) was the best way.
Where we are now gauges the spirituality of the people in general. If they want irresponsibility and socialistic government or even in their religion or business operations, they will have it and pay the price.
Neighborhood religions are great for knowing your neighbors, but people are so different that they will automatically separate into groups of their own kind. You won't see an entire neighborhood unite until each soul and his belief is similar enough ("common ground") to motivate their participation.
--David