How insightful. Thank you.
"Church" is from Kirk, from Greek kyriakon (doma) Older Presbyterian groups in Scotland are called "Kirk" or "The Kirk". e.g. The Free Kirk, for The Free Church (of Scotland). Many retain the word "Kirk" in various names or events such as "Kirk Session", literally the "church's (gathering of elders) seated". Most will simply call it "session" or "(the elders are) in session". As in "
en ekklesia". But this tends to result in a disproportionate emphasis on historic buildings, for repair, renovation, etc, and the supremacy of elders almost regardless of teaching, people will be ardently loyal. Missing the point entirely.
Better teachers will preach against the error, taking example from Jeremiah 7:4,
"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these. For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour; If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt" (Jer 7:4-6)
Which the Scandinavian view/culture/belief/practice, seems to genuinely (for the most part) have understood as evident in their practices: e.g. social reforms for the people that are numerous and constantly updating (positively).
Then I suppose looking at talking/approaching/communication/teaching from that context (error > correction), then it makes sense how the Scandinavian view that
if everyone had kept the law and followed the rules then there would be no error and no problems, generally speaking. And the implicit lack of necessity or hypocrisy from external expressed communication.
Hence the aloof keeping to oneself culture I suppose. To self-regulate, self-correct, and to look inward for answers (?). A culture of self-examination, self-reflection, etc.
Which begs a question about self-regulation, and how it is the flock communicates, if not by natural order:
Parents > children
elders > congregation
Moses > elders
God > Moses
Christ > his sheep
Paul > the Gentiles
Peter > the Jews
Yet united as one
I've heard (immigrant) parents find it bizarre that Scandi children appear to have no respect for elders, talking/behaving almost without honour. Which I noticed with my (originally Polish) Swedish colleague. His son (a teenager, raised in Sweden) came to work a few times and would cheekily mock, belittle, criticise his dad. Although he had a valid point the
communication method is frowned upon in Australian (and British) culture. The dad's response was interesting also. Instead of talking down to him as a child, he would tell a blunt truth (implying consequence for actions), giving a chance for him to choose for himself and learn the natural way or hard way. Whereas Australians tend to be dictatorial: Do it or else.
About
ekklesia, there's quite a bit to it so I'm not sure which aspects Sweden has or hasn't embraced. I'll reference Thayers and let you see,
G1577 - ekklēsia - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
From the outside it seems the Scandi view has emphasised the "assembly" and "gathering" aspect, as seen in social events where everyone in the group is supposed to attend. In a homogenous but also in a non-optional and compulsory way. Say, compared to individualistic societies where everyone does their own random thing, anywhere anytime. There's a stricter sense of uniformity, sameness, or 'equality'. That the 'collective' identity is stronger and more important than the 'individual', doing things for the greater good per se. Instead of vice versa, for an individual (or minority) to do things at the expense of others, which happens to major problem in other societies.
Is there more to it than this?
I read somewhere that "evangelical" churches have been growing popular. I didn't think much of it, but given which would seem odd. How would you explain that? And for "traditional" groups, immigrants, or visitors like myself, is there a place in society then for such people? What about then for
hallacha,
haftorah,
amidah, as oral tradition (assuming you're Jewish), public reading Torah in synagogue. Similar also for Presbyterian liturgy and psalmody. Are these seen or treated as socially unacceptable?
