I was visiting with a couple from our house church tonight, and had some very deep, answerless, challenging discussions. I just have to take a moment and share some raw thoughts about one of the topics. There are no values placed on these statements… just pure frustration and emotion.
Authority. Legitimacy. Ideas and concepts that Jared has been wrestling with on his blog. Tonight, some of the reasons for the difficulty these concepts pose to me came to light. However, having light shine on a problem does not always guarantee quick resolution of the problem.
Issue #1: Systems always have unintended consequences, and there is no escaping a system. For example, we were talking about two different approaches to “operating” a faith community, for lack of a better word. One is a more egalitarian, fluid, organic, and, my default, democratic way of functioning (let’s call it the Democratic Model). People share their views, and the community discusses things and decides on activities more democratically. This allows diverse spiritual and theological views to remain (since it is more activities than beliefs that are concretely decided in a (default) democratic way). Another system in some way codifies a group’s values and actions, defining itself early on and allowing others to accept and co-exist or decline and not engage a particular group (let’s call it the Constitutional Model).
Why this issue? Because as a group, we have tremendously strong relationships and connections with strong spiritual focus. This has led to the happy yet troubling problem of growth. Issues weren’t really issues when you have only six or seven adults with the same background. It becomes more challenging with 15 adults with very different backgrounds.
So practically, what does this issue mean on the ground, for us in our home church? Everyone is a part of our church for some reason; everyone sees something they value in the group. It may be the freedom to grow and stretch spiritually, or the intimacy and love of the relationships, or it may be the simple fulfillment of friendship needs, or it may be the non-institutional, non-building oriented nature of the church. But as the group grows, the diversity of values (what is important to people) shift. So, if we take a more Democratic Model, as more voices add to the decision making process, the values that drew the initial core may change from being the majority to the minority. Then you are faced with the dilemma of staying where you no longer fit in or where your values are no longer guiding the actions of the group, or leaving the bonds of love and desires of unity to find a group more like-minded (birds of a feather, flock together). If a Constitutional Model is used, there would be an explicit shaping of the group, which might keep some away, and cause accusations of trying to be different, unique, and/or divisive, or the possibility of “rule by the minority” based on this codification of self-concept at a static point in time.
Ahhhhhh! Can you feel the frustration (confusion?) as your head spins?
So, being more concrete, let’s give a real possible question. Let’s assume for now that we have 15 adults, 9 of which don’t want to ever have a building, 2 of which would prefer a building, and 4 who don’t really care either way. We decide tomorrow that we are going to follow a Democratic Model. Let’s say that 8 more people join our group, and that they all happen to be open to having a building, and in fact, would like to work towards that. Now, the majority value of the group is to work towards a building (10), while 9 people think a building would destroy the very nature of the group. In a Democratic Model, the majority would win, and the new minority must decide if they should restart a group that has no plans to pursue a building, or stay where their values are no longer promoted as directly. If they did leave, then ultimately they would be assuming a default Constitutional Model by valuing this belief more than the voice of the majority, and in forming another group with that common belief, have an unofficial (non-explicit) constitution. But, if the group adopted a form of common framework that stated this group values being free from the burdens and financial drain of buildings and values the authenticity that meeting in homes allows, then as it grew, people would know that this is what this particular group believes, and if that doesn’t fit with the new person’s values, then they wouldn’t join. This model comes across judgmental, authoritarian, and divisive, at least to many. It might slow and prevent growth, but it may also slow or prevent later division.
What is better? What is right? What has more weight of tradition? What has more Biblical weight? My brain is frying!
Issue #2: Deciding a system is immensely more difficult than criticizing a system. It has always been easier to find fault in a system that I did not create nor approve of. I feel the weight of this decision, and it makes me want to run away, or abdicate. However, no decision is in fact a vote for the default, whatever that may be where you are. For us, that would be more of a Democratic Model. And at this point, I have as much say in a decision as anyone else.
Oh there is more. Much more. But this is way too long as it is. A glimpse into the future:
Issue #3: The importance, role, and dangers of investing authority.
4 comments:
One question: Do you want this to be a club or a church?
Just a thought.
Interesting question, Rae. But we must define what those are to answer the question, even just a "thought" question. The word "church" (in the New Testament it is the Greek work 'ekklesia') simply means a gathering, a group. It has original links to "the called", but referred to secular things like town meetings, of sorts. But Luke uses the term in Acts 17:5 to refer to the pagan mob that gathered to protest. When Jesus said he would build His "church", all he said was he would build his crowd/gathering/assembly/called.
So the distinctions between a club or a church can get blurred.
However, I can more directly answer the spirit of the question. A club, in my mind, is an organization where "membership has its privileges." That, frankly, describes most modern megachurches today. They offer childcare, retreats, financial courses, marriage enrichment programs, softball leagues, gym access, free concerts, etc, all for dues paid weekly. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with any of that. But I think that a church should have the connotation of responsibility as much as benefits. It is a community of people who commit to joint activities in the name of Christ.
I do want our faith community to be the church (the incarnate Body of Christ), full of joys, benefits, and obligations.
None of these distinctions address the leadership or system questions in the post. But because of how I understand and define the terms in your question, I cannot give a response that truly answers the question behind your question.
:-)
Tony
Ok first all, I have always been one who thinks it is great to question authority, especially when it seems overbearing. But I also get very frustrated listening to people trying to "define" things without any "authority" but their own.
Cmon. You need literature/history to define ANYthing. I don't care what it is.
If you are trying to define carpentry terms, you need carpentry literature, right?
If you are trying to define "holy" or spiritual things, you need "holy" literature.
If I said to you, I am going to scrap tonight... you might think I was going to fight. Or you might think I was going to make a scrapbook. Depending on your "interpretation" of my person. You have to have it in context to know the truth of the matter though!
Basically what I am saying is context, context, context. Or, context=authority.
Not just for "holy" things, although that is the most common place where authority is questioned. But, for everything you do every day of your life you need to figure out the authority. That is why we need expert testimony in courts of law. That is why we have an American Academy of Pediatrics.
Would you go out and attempt to train a horse without first checking the authorities on the subject? Would you read how to train a horse from a dog training manual? No: wrong context, correct?
So in context: you want a church?
Where does the idea of a church come from? In your instance, the Bible? If that is so, that is where you ought to get your authority from then. Or, if you will, that is where you ought to get your "context" from.
You have already realized that some things are culturally different in the Bible. But if that is going to be a roadblock to your ability to understand the "operation" of a church, then I am guessing you could not look through a century-old manual on training horses, and take the significant parts out to use in your training of your horse!
I guess what I am trying to say to you is this:
Everyone has different ideas and wants. When it comes to laws or rules or ways of doing things, are everyone's ideas equal?
When it comes to training horses, whose ideas are better: Yours? Mine? The Pope's? Clint Eastwood's? Bob Jeffreys'? (I'd go with Bob Jeffreys, btw)
When it comes to church operation, whose ideas are better: Yours? Mine? The Pope's? The leaders of the Jehovah's Witness in NYC? God's?
I just think you would find this less frustrating if you were guided by God, instead of what everyone wants out of God.
Really, I have been reading both your blog, and Jarod's blog, and I notice that you both seem to want to be religious, but only on your terms.
Hence, it seems to me, you both want to figure out "authority" in a different way than "normal".... That is just my opinion after reading your thoughts.
I hope you aren't offended by what I wrote....
Hello Rae,
Thanks for your post. I absolute think that the Bible informs our understanding not only of church organization, but also authority itself. But the "devil is in the details" as it is said. Part of understanding authority is identifying a structure (organization/manifestation) and then asking, "Why is it like this?" It is not sufficient to simply says, "The Bible says..." We must ask why? Why did they do it that way? The next question is, "Does that mean we have to do it that way today?" The simplest example is the "holy kiss." It is commanded several times (commanded, not suggested, or observed, but stated in the imperative form). To simply say, "The Bible says we have to greet each other with a kiss" is to condemn most American Christians, but also to approach "authority" in too simple a way. We must ask "What was a holy kiss?", "Why did Paul command that?", "What did it mean for them?", "What does that mean for us?" I think that you get the point.
I'm not going to go further into the subject of authority here (perhaps a future post) but suffice it to say that attention to detail and context is vital, and that is where much of my exploration is centered.
Thanks for the challenging thoughts, and no offence taken! :-)
Tony
Post a Comment