|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fluidity and self-regulation
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This thread's come out of the 'next great move of God' one.
Despite differences of emphasis, we all seem to be agreed on that thread that churches in the UK (and Western churches in general?) will have to adopt more organic and flexible ways of operating if they are to remain viable as Christendom dissolves.
Some, like the esteemed South Coast Kevin, believe that organic and fluid means there's a greater likelihood of churches engaging with the culture.
Others don't have such high expectations but take the pragmatic view that a more 'liquid' form of church life is inevitable in the longer term.
Hopefully without stoking up arguments between 'institutional' and 'historic' and what are seen as less institutional forms of Christianity (which I would argue are just as institutional but in a different kind of way) - I'd like to explore the issue of self-regulation in a more 'fluid' or organic setting.
How would this work?
What checks and balances would need to be in place? Who are the final arbiters?
Of course, as has been said on t'other thread the presence of a Magisterium, written creeds and an episcopal/conciliar or an episcopal approach in general does not, in an of itself, guarantee that things will stay 'on track'.
It might be that Shipmates believe that there is no 'on track' to adhere to in the first place.
Whatever our views on this one, I'm interested to explore how an organic or self-appointed form of church can regulate itself in order to ensure:
- Spiritual health and development.
- Avoidance of extremes.
- Avoidance of insularity.
- Avoidance of the cult of personality.
All of which strike me as the key issues here.
Answers on a postcard please ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Having been in a wholly and radically independent small fellowship group in the 1980s, I can say that the only regulation that usually exists in that kind of 'organisation' (if I can dare use that word) is the will of the top dog. And the only way to regulate his authority is either for us all to have such a genuine encounter with God, that God takes control and puts the leader in his place or there is the mechanism of "voting with one's feet". (But even such a leader will try to manipulate the work of the Holy Spirit.)
I remember the leader saying that "the church is not about rules but about relationships". That comment sounds absolutely great, doesn't it? On paper it has all the feel of spiritual liberty. But in reality it's a bit like exchanging the yokes of wood for the yokes of iron (to use a biblical metaphor). In retrospect, I think I would have preferred the rules to the relationships, because the moment such a leader ditches rules in favour of 'relationships' he has manoeuvred himself into a position where he can manipulate others at will. There is no objective - and therefore impersonal - framework of accountability, within which relationships can function in a healthy manner. I remember Paul Tournier's book "The Strong and the Weak", and this outlines how "the strong" can simply control relationships for their own purposes (I must try and find my copy and reread that - I'm sure it's in the loft somewhere! Great book.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with the propensity for groups of this kind to become dominated by the most dominant personality.
I'm not sure I quite understand how it look if God were to 'take control' ... we're none of us divine sock-puppets. It's a synergistic thing, it seems to me, we co-operate with the divine.
And there's a collective and conciliar aspect to that - which both Congregationalists and the Orthodox would highlight in their own different ways.
I think an understanding of group dynamics is important too - and those books you cite may provide insights into that aspect.
I do remember a group which broke away from larger, and arguably, an ostensibly more domineering approach ... only to develop a more subtle form of the same thing. When it finally imploded many of the members required counselling and therapy to get over the experience. They'd invested so much trust and emotional capital into the leaders.
These are tricky areas.
Which is why I learn towards the 'it's-naive-to-expect-organic-church-experiments-to-work' stance.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'm not sure I quite understand how it look if God were to 'take control' ... we're none of us divine sock-puppets. It's a synergistic thing, it seems to me, we co-operate with the divine.
Perhaps 'control' is not the right word. 'Restraint' would be better. I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit can restrain evil, and can place a check on manipulative people in certain settings. Sadly, however, there are some who seem adept at even manipulating the Holy Spirit. It's a difficult question, I agree, but I certainly believe (backed up by certain experiences I have had) that God can manifest Himself in a meeting with the result that it is almost the case that He takes control of proceedings.
But I am not going to argue to the death about it, because we are in the difficult area of experience/s, and it's impossible for anyone to prove one's case in that context.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
I really enjoyed reading through the other thread, even if the contributions were so good, they left me nothing to say! Great stuff, guys!
But I think I'll dip my toes in the water (or poke my oar in) here.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Whatever our views on this one, I'm interested to explore how an organic or self-appointed form of church can regulate itself in order to ensure:
- Spiritual health and development.
- Avoidance of extremes.
- Avoidance of insularity.
- Avoidance of the cult of personality.
All of which strike me as the key issues here.
I'm just wondering if the church can regulate itself to ensure those things, for any length of time. I might be wrong, but isn't it generally true that genuine new moves of God tend be short-lived anyway? And that even new ways of doing church seem to start the descent into entropy, almost as soon as they are born? That, or they quickly develop a rigidity in which the freshness is lost.I sometimes think we have a permanent message, but only transient ways of expressing that. And I'm struggling to come up with a movement which has established Gamaliel's listed ideal characteristics, and has managed to keep them. Perhaps someone else knows more about that than me.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Actually I was discussing this just the other night on Facebook, after reading a student's account of Cambridge Inter-College Christian Union being rather controlling regarding members' personal lives.
Here is the article for reference, although I don't want to make this about the rights and wrongs of UCCF! Whilst CUs aren't churches, they do reflect church experience for many evangelical young people. To what extent should individual Christians be accountable to each other? Although I am on the left, I am in the libertarian-left quarter of the political axes, and as such feel pretty uncomfortable with such strict control on such personal matters coming from clergy/leaders. Whilst Christians obviously should live lives that reflect their faith, there surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between church life and private life, unless one lives in a community (and even then, members have some privacy).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit can restrain evil, and can place a check on manipulative people in certain settings. Sadly, however, there are some who seem adept at even manipulating the Holy Spirit.
Actually manipulating the Holy Spirit? The mind boggles. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I assume you mean that such people claim that what is actually their own will in a situation is the Holy Spirit's will just by asserting it to be so. In other words: The Holy Spirit Is On Their Side. And if others are not on The Holy Spirit's Side, they are on the Wrong Side.
Prats. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually I was discussing this just the other night on Facebook, after reading a student's account of Cambridge Inter-College Christian Union being rather controlling regarding members' personal lives.
Here is the article for reference, although I don't want to make this about the rights and wrongs of UCCF! Whilst CUs aren't churches, they do reflect church experience for many evangelical young people. To what extent should individual Christians be accountable to each other? Although I am on the left, I am in the libertarian-left quarter of the political axes, and as such feel pretty uncomfortable with such strict control on such personal matters coming from clergy/leaders. Whilst Christians obviously should live lives that reflect their faith, there surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between church life and private life, unless one lives in a community (and even then, members have some privacy).
I loved this line in the article:
quote:
For the girls out there who thought they were chocolate bars, a special gift to give to their husbands on their wedding day, it seemed it wouldn’t really matter how well they got on with a prospective partner as long as they both believed in God and had their wrappers intact.
Chocolate bars! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Seriously, I don't think anyone should be giving personal moral advice unless the recipient asked for it. Telling someone who they should date or not- bleh!
And virginity is over-rated.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@EE - yes, I know what you're attempting to express here ... don't get me wrong, I've had sufficient engagement with the charismatic scene to recognise that there are times when the presence of God is very, very tangible in some of those settings.
As for manipulating the Holy Spirit ... well, Simon the Sorcerer thought he could purchase and control the power of the Spirit in Acts ...
My current take on this one would be that people aren't manipulating the Holy Spirit but rather, manipulating certain moods, atmospheres and phenomena which they take to be signs of the presence of the Spirit and hall-marks of his activity.
The difficulty is that some of these things can be both genuine indications of the work and particular presence of the Divine - if I can put it that way - and also all-too-human outworkings of suggestibility and heightened expectation.
It can be a tricky one to distinguish between them at times.
But I take the point you're making.
Generally, though, I would suggest that God the Holy Spirit would 'restrain' or correct people by generally humdrum, practical and what we might see as everyday means ... ie. people clocking that things are dodgy and going elsewhere or else people somehow being able to challenge and correct manipulative leaders.
I do believe that God the Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of sorting us out and leading us into all truth ... I can think of an instance from the Plain Truth Armstrongism guys where they eventually came round to a traditional and orthodox understanding of the Trinity partly because a Catholic priest wrote a letter in response to a dodgy article about the Trinity in one of their publications.
I had to chuckle later on when I read in a very Reformed evangelical publication that God had 'even' used an RC priest to bring these guys round a more orthodox position. As though this were even more incredible than them clocking it by other means.
So, yes, I do believe that God the Holy Spirit can lead and guide. But generally I see this happening through discussion, debate, reflection and so on rather than some direct and vatic intervention in a church service or something of that kind.
I s'pose what I'm more interested in on this thread, though, is how new or emerging groups and the kind of organic churches that South Coast Kevin envisages would set about building in checks and balances and moderation.
Take an analogy from these Boards. They are well moderated. I think we would all agree with that. Imagine how it would be if they weren't.
And the moderation helps with the self-moderation. I'm a lot more careful now than I was before I was temporarily suspended.
Ok, it's not an exact analogy but I think it demonstrates the need for some kind of agreed standard in all aspects of human endeavour - and churchy things are essentially a synergistic human/divine partnership - or should be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose
Actually manipulating the Holy Spirit? The mind boggles.
Point taken. A bad turn of phrase on my part.
What I mean is that in those meetings where the presence of God is more evident, there are some who can take advantage even of this. This does not mean that they are actually objectively manipulating God, because that is impossible, but rather taking advantage of the situation, such that their utterances and actions can (they hope) be perceived to enjoy divine approval. I have personally experienced this quite a number of times. Of course, some people may ask what I understand by "the presence of God", and then we really are opening a can of worms...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually I was discussing this just the other night on Facebook, after reading a student's account of Cambridge Inter-College Christian Union being rather controlling regarding members' personal lives.
Here is the article for reference, although I don't want to make this about the rights and wrongs of UCCF! Whilst CUs aren't churches, they do reflect church experience for many evangelical young people. To what extent should individual Christians be accountable to each other? Although I am on the left, I am in the libertarian-left quarter of the political axes, and as such feel pretty uncomfortable with such strict control on such personal matters coming from clergy/leaders. Whilst Christians obviously should live lives that reflect their faith, there surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between church life and private life, unless one lives in a community (and even then, members have some privacy).
It's a well written article but how much of it is hyperbole and how much is invention? (There is a rebuttal on the same site).
To what extent are church life and private life part of our Christian life? If they are part of it then shouldn't we expect a degree of consistency and correlation in belief and practice between the two? If there isn't, then it's little short of hypocrisy.
Attitude and example are important but perhaps the real issue is that we're all reluctant to receive advice and direction unless it ties in with what we see or what we want.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The 'interference' thing is a tricky area. I could cite examples from church settings which I would consider otherwise unexceptionable and non-manipulative and not otherwise abusive.
In fact, I was horrified to learn of an instance where I would definitely consider things to have gone too far in this respect on the part of the leadership in a church where I was happily involved - and blissfully unaware of the particular incident I have in mind.
I suspect, though, in this instance, those involved themselves would now consider that their actions were heavy-handed at that particular time.
I'm not talking about issues of morality here in terms of pre-marital sex and so forth, or the kind of issues in the UCCF piece, but in cases of that kind there would have to be agreed groundrules and so on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm interested to explore how an organic or self-appointed form of church can regulate itself in order to ensure:
- Spiritual health and development.
- Avoidance of extremes.
- Avoidance of insularity.
- Avoidance of the cult of personality.
All of which strike me as the key issues here.
Answers on a postcard please ...
I've come across some info about what makes for a successful/healthy cell group, house church, or organic church, etc. but it wouldn't fit on a postcard! And we should remind ourselves that Protestantism is a story of liberation; no one is bound to align themselves with anyone else's list of expectations.
However, regarding your list, and in no special order, I imagine that insularity will be less and less of a problem issue in the future. The internet will keep the organic church interconnected and transcultural. But this is no guarantee of orthodoxy; it'll just help to transmit 'new orthodoxies' around the world more rapidly.
Some extremism is required to the extent that the group identity needs to be quite distinct from what's happening in the wider environment. But not so extreme that members have breakdowns and can no longer function; that doesn't serve the survival of the group. Trial and error is perhaps the only way to judge this.
Re personality cults, it should be said that organic spirituality isn't about bowing down before a charismatic leader; it's specifically about developing an active priesthood of all believers. Some people want to be led, of course, but those people won't be happy in a group where each person is meant to contribute. And those who want to contribute will abandon a group where all the focus is on the leader.
According to Frank Viola spiritual health and development are served by organic spirituality because it ensures that individuals are actively valued and empowered and aren't expected to wait for clergy and other religious specialists to 'feed' them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, SvitlanaV2, but how do we avoid the formation of personality cults?
Organic spirituality doesn't set out to bow down before a charismatic leader but in practice, it seems to me, this is what often happens.
How do we guard against this?
If abusive developments such as those which poisoned the Nine O'Clock Service in Sheffield can develop within an historical church context, how much more likely would they be in an organic and developing one?
And without the checks and balances that one finds in the older churches and more established denominations.
Perhaps the fluidity itself provides part of the answer, a more organic group could, in theory, simply dissolve and reform in an amoeba like way ...
In practice, though, I suspect many participants in a group of this kind would simply ooze away and stop meeting together in any way if they'd had experience of abusive or toxic developments.
I've not read Frank Viola but his comments sound naive to me. I'm all for people being actively valued and empowered and so on but in the newer church groups I've come across that tends to come at a heavy price ... you're empowered in one way and disenfranchised in another.
In other words, they give with one hand only to take away with the other.
What looks like freedom is a chimera.
I'd like to be proven wrong. So far I remain unconvinced.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
You've talked a lot about the practices of the house churches you've attended, but said little about their foundational principles. This seems to be the issue to me. A house church isn't necessarily run according to democratic principles, any more than a church that meets in an ancient building. 'The priesthood of all believers' isn't primarily dependent upon a comfy sofa rather than wooden pews. These values need to be part of a deliberate theological programme. The Nine O'Clock Service wanted to be 'alternative', but what was its theological basis?
It's true that churches frequently modify their theological perspective after a while; you could say this is the destiny of any church movement that lasts long enough to go mainstream. But without actually knowing what a new church is actually setting out to do in the first place it's not possible to pinpoint how it's failed in its task. What was the task? What was the goal? What was the theological framework?
As for Viola, he doesn't say that any Christian group that meets in a house, or any group with a trendy, alternative edge, is automatically an 'organic church'. Our lack of clarity regarding all these terms isn't helpful, although stopping to clarify all of them would admittedly be a bit wearisome.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Gamaliel
I can offer the counterexample of the Society of Friends. Since Fox died, no one has, to my knowledge, ever accused us of having charismatic leadership (if they have, I want some of what they're smoking), let alone a cult of personality. How we pulled it off I can't really say, though decision-making by consensus surely plays into it, along with placing a high value on being able to shut up. That and having no hierarchy. Somehow we have ended up with a religious culture in which you win people over with quiet persistence (and, we believe, the guidance of the Spirit) rather than personal dynamism. I don't know if that makes us a model, or just an anomaly.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Gamaliel
I can offer the counterexample of the Society of Friends. Since Fox died, no one has, to my knowledge, ever accused us of having charismatic leadership (if they have, I want some of what they're smoking), let alone a cult of personality. How we pulled it off I can't really say, though decision-making by consensus surely plays into it, along with placing a high value on being able to shut up. That and having no hierarchy. Somehow we have ended up with a religious culture in which you win people over with quiet persistence (and, we believe, the guidance of the Spirit) rather than personal dynamism. I don't know if that makes us a model, or just an anomaly.
This is clearly how you see the Society of Friends but it won't be a common experience for everyone both inside and (more particularly) outside the meetings. The fact that friends has annual gatherings suggests it's a denomination and an organisation, despite claims to the contrary.
In the UK at least, some would struggle to describe Friends as "Christian" given their non involvement in intra church events and the expressed belief by some meetings that there are many ways to God (one or two groups I've come across hold pantheistic views). The lack of creedal (propositional) statements means that belief is likely to be fluid as its dependent on the feeling of the meetings concerned.
Yes, it's true that there isn't a hierarchy as such within friends but within a meeting the so called quiet persistence of some, is given greater weight than that of others. As an outsider, I've known what you refer to as quiet persistence move into what most of us would describe as strident opposition (e.g an insistence in ecumenical meetings that we begin with friends style centred prayer).
In appropriate direction doesn't just come from charismatic leadership it is also possible from passive: aggressive structures and people that mask the outward manifestations of power, without removing its effect under the waterline. What I suppose I'm saying is that IME no structure or group that involves people is devoid of agendas and even in the most socially and communally committed groups, the will of some can rise to become the will and direction of the group.
Laudable aims and goals but as with any group involving people, on a day to day level things seem to drift away from the ideal.
[ 19. October 2013, 06:42: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, SvitlanaV2, but how do we avoid the formation of personality cults?
Organic spirituality doesn't set out to bow down before a charismatic leader but in practice, it seems to me, this is what often happens.
How do we guard against this?
If abusive developments such as those which poisoned the Nine O'Clock Service in Sheffield can develop within an historical church context, how much more likely would they be in an organic and developing one?
And without the checks and balances that one finds in the older churches and more established denominations.
Perhaps the fluidity itself provides part of the answer, a more organic group could, in theory, simply dissolve and reform in an amoeba like way ...
In practice, though, I suspect many participants in a group of this kind would simply ooze away and stop meeting together in any way if they'd had experience of abusive or toxic developments.
I've not read Frank Viola but his comments sound naive to me. I'm all for people being actively valued and empowered and so on but in the newer church groups I've come across that tends to come at a heavy price ... you're empowered in one way and disenfranchised in another.
In other words, they give with one hand only to take away with the other.
What looks like freedom is a chimera.
I'd like to be proven wrong. So far I remain unconvinced.
I'm with you on all of this. No group is power free IME (and I've been involved with such groups for many years so I have a bit of experience here) and the so called emer* churches have few checks or balances.
Such groups are seen by denominations as the next best thing. They are habitually given rather more rope and scope, with less direction, than most groups closer historically to the core are given with the (sadly common) result of damaged people and compromised witness for other church groups in the same area.
I've read Viola and it comes across rather as "look at me, I'm cutting edge" Wow - do you want a prize for that?
I'll go back to what I said up thread: the time to engage with the next move of God is when (and only when) we've got this one sorted out in the sense that we really engaged with God and the Kingdom around us.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If abusive developments such as those which poisoned the Nine O'Clock Service in Sheffield can develop within an historical church context, how much more likely would they be in an organic and developing one?
And without the checks and balances that one finds in the older churches and more established denominations.
Sorry to post briefly again (annoyingly busy week, and just about to head out for the weekend!) but a key point of the organic church 'thing' is, as SvitlanaV2 noted above, that everyone involved is expected to contribute, and thus it's less likely that abusive environments and theological heresy will develop.
Institutional churches can easily fall victim to charismatic leaders because they often have quite a hierarchical structure and bishops (or their equivalents) often have quite a remote relationship with the local churches. The idea of organic churches is that leadership is (a) shared among several people, and (b) not tied up within a hierarchical system.
From what I've read (but not from any real personal experience, I hasten to add), this should - and often does - lead to a Christian community where people are less likely to fall victim to a plausible-sounding heresy. The checks and balances come much more from each person being encouraged and expected to take responsibility for their own spiritual development, although there are several networks that churches can get linked in with if they don't want to associate with a denomination as such.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm certainly willing to cut the Religious Society of Friends some slack but other than some I knew at university and some I've encountered in the workplace or on the poetry circuit (a lot of Friends write poetry), I've not had that much direct experience of how it all works out in practice. I have attended a Friends meeting once.
I certainly believe that there's something there that is worth considering. How closely it chimes with what I - and presumably ExclamationMark - take to be core, creedal Christianity is a moot point but then, that only applies if you believe that the dogmatic core of creedal Christianity is important.
@SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin - yes, most of the examples I'm drawing on for small, apparently organic groups comes from 1980s/90s 'house-church'-dom. The priesthood of all believers and active every-member participation was strongly emphasised there. In reality, though, they defaulted to authoritarian structures.
I see no evidence, beyond South Coast Kevin's insistence otherwise, that newer or more recent organic groups wouldn't go the same way given time.
The burden of proof lies with you both on this one.
Just because Frank Viola or the latest trendy how-to-do-church guru says it'll work doesn't mean that it will.
What I'm still waiting for an answer to is the question of how South Coast Kevin imagines that a group consisting of him and his mates is somehow automatically going to avoid becoming institutional or falling prey to some kind of dominant personality when most, if not all such attempts have eventually institutionalised or, as in the case of the Friends, arguably departed from what could be considered mainstream, creedal Christianity.
I'm still waiting for an answer on that one.
What 'checks and balances' would South Coast Kevin and his pals have in place that no other group in the history of Christianity has so far been able to develop.
I find such an implication extraordinarily naive and a tad hubristic.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin - yes, most of the examples I'm drawing on for small, apparently organic groups comes from 1980s/90s 'house-church'-dom. The priesthood of all believers and active every-member participation was strongly emphasised there. In reality, though, they defaulted to authoritarian structures.
[...]
What 'checks and balances' would South Coast Kevin and his pals have in place that no other group in the history of Christianity has so far been able to develop.
But what checks and balances did the groups that you attended employ? Most churches pay lip service to wanting to get everyone involved - you don't have to be part of a trendy 80s house church to use the jargon of lay empowerment. But it takes more deliberate theological reflection to create a durable counter-cultural way of being. Perhaps it also takes a trial and error approach, and a constant alertness....
Despite years of hanging around in churches I never heard any real thinking on this subject. All I got was a church minister who grumbled to me (because I was a church steward) about churchgoers who 'never do anything'! For both clergy and laity to move beyond that mindset must be an extremely difficult thing to do. I'm not surprised that independent small groups, whose members bring that background with them from the institutional churches, face the same challenges. I'm well aware that independent Christian groups in church history have faced many problems - although your implication that all independent groups in history have failed seems harsh. Maybe a good many of them did the work that God called them to do in their time and place?
I don't know if South Coast Kevin is planning to present Viola's definition of 'organic church', and his defense of its viability. If not, I may have a go, simply to add some clarification (I hope) to the discussion. Your own experience and definition of an 'apparently organic group' appear to differ in some key ways from Viola's. There could be various reasons for those differences.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
...a key point of the organic church 'thing' is, as SvitlanaV2 noted above, that everyone involved is expected to contribute, and thus it's less likely that abusive environments and theological heresy will develop.
Institutional churches can easily fall victim to charismatic leaders because they often have quite a hierarchical structure and bishops (or their equivalents) often have quite a remote relationship with the local churches. The idea of organic churches is that leadership is (a) shared among several people, and (b) not tied up within a hierarchical system.
From what I've read (but not from any real personal experience, I hasten to add), this should - and often does - lead to a Christian community where people are less likely to fall victim to a plausible-sounding heresy. The checks and balances come much more from each person being encouraged and expected to take responsibility for their own spiritual development, although there are several networks that churches can get linked in with if they don't want to associate with a denomination as such.
I can't see that it follows that a church in which everyone is expected to contribute is less likely to be abusive and prone to heresy. I was in a fellowship where everyone was expected to contribute, and that itself justified the abuse. So someone who was considered to be "not pulling their weight" became a target for subtle - and sometimes not so subtle - accusations of lack of commitment, half-heartedness etc. Furthermore, the 'contributions' were heavily monitored and controlled.
And what if someone felt strongly about a particular issue that did not accord with the views of the rest of the fellowship, and particularly the leadership? Would that person's contribution be respected and accepted, and then carefully worked through with recourse to evidence and logic? I very much doubt it! I would suggest that that person would only be exposing himself to the type of ministry attention which is rightly described as abusive.
The "contribution environment" concept is a smokescreen. It gives the impression of openness and freedom, but actually it's an environment in which strong - and sometimes manipulative - personalities can flourish, whereas those who are perhaps more reticent, or who find it difficult to express themselves, or to fight their corner, are steamrollered.
As for the lack of a hierarchy: I would have thought that this system is more likely to create a "closed shop" among the leadership, who are only accountable to each other within the framework of what is self-justifyingly termed 'friendship'. Superficially it sounds great, doesn't it? But a group only accountable to itself within a framework where the group makes up the rules (though claiming that it's God who leads and guides them) does not inspire confidence in me. But an established hierarchical system of accountability, full of checks and balances, that are historically established within an institution, which is separate from the people who conform to it, is far safer.
Concerning the idea of falling victim to heresy: yes, we should guard against heresy, on the assumption that heresy is not defined as "that which does not accord with the leader's latest pronouncement". But God is not just concerned about the theological content of our minds, but about our whole being. A church can be free of heresy, yet toxic and abusive. The profession of belief in certain tenets of orthodoxy is no guarantee of spiritual health.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not saying that attempts to create more organic forms of church have failed necessarily - simply that they inevitably end up solidifying into something more institutional than their founders envisaged. This strikes me as an historical inevitability.
The old sociological thing about the marginal sect eventually developing into a church holds good, I think.
At least with the Baptists and other 'traditional' non-conformist groups they are sufficiently aware of the group dynamics to acknowledge that they have institutional structures. The Baptist Union churches are all very aware of that even if, in practice, they sit loosely by centralised decision-making/rubrics.
Whatever church we're talking about, it seems that the level of involvement and the level of people taking responsibility to run/do things varies.
At our local parish church there seems to be a core of very hard-working people who do virtually everything.
The same applies, I suspect, to most Baptist or congregational-style churches I suspect.
If a bunch of people started meeting more fluidly in a coffee bar or someone's front room then sooner or later the onus for particular tasks is going to fall on particular people. Sooner or later there'll be 'division of labour' and various roles emerging. Sooner or later it will inevitably take on a more institutional flavour.
I really don't understand why this seems so contentious.
I've already mentioned the little arts group that I'm involved with. As time's going on the more formalised we're becoming, with minutes, a constitution and so on and so forth.
Any group is going to develop those things.
Whatever style of church or whatever the churchmanship there's always a core of people who give of their time and talents. Whether it's making the tea, meeting and greeting, doing the magazine, counting up the collection money ...
What I don't see is how this wonderfully magic organic-style church set up that some posters fondly envisage can end up any differently. It will simply end up with a different set of problems and challenges. That's life. Get over it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I cross posted with EE and once again I find myself in full agreement with him.
This is becoming a pattern. It's becoming a trend. Perhaps it may become something institutional ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying that attempts to create more organic forms of church have failed necessarily - simply that they inevitably end up solidifying into something more institutional than their founders envisaged. This strikes me as an historical inevitability.
The old sociological thing about the marginal sect eventually developing into a church holds good, I think.
I made reference to this in a post above. But I also said that God's will may still be done in a radical church movement, even if it does end up as a very respectable institutional church a few generations later. Even the CofE benefits from such church movements at some stage, so it should be wary of discouraging them.
quote:
Whatever church we're talking about, it seems that the level of involvement and the level of people taking responsibility to run/do things varies.
At our local parish church there seems to be a core of very hard-working people who do virtually everything.
The same applies, I suspect, to most Baptist or congregational-style churches I suspect.
This is indeed the way things generally develop. Yet church leaders complain about it practically all the time! Your response seems to be that everyone should silently accept this situation. Perhaps we should. But if so, the church should make much more of an effort to explain the theological reasons why. Considering the great silence that these issues meet, it's quite unsurprising that some people want to try something else. That too is human nature!! To much is taken for granted in church life - maybe that's the real problem.
quote:
If a bunch of people started meeting more fluidly in a coffee bar or someone's front room then sooner or later the onus for particular tasks is going to fall on particular people. Sooner or later there'll be 'division of labour' and various roles emerging. Sooner or later it will inevitably take on a more institutional flavour.
Yet one argument is that institutionalism actually prevents people from using their gifts, because it gives people too many hoops to jump through, especially if they don't fit the institutional profile of what someone doing a certain role should look like.
As for the arts group you mention elsewhere in your post, it's obviously not going to be 'organic' because its members have no particular aim in making it so. I'm not sure why a group that has no theological interest in structures is a good example of why one particular structure is useless and irrelevant; surely it's only useless and irrelevant for that particular group.
quote:
What I don't see is how this wonderfully magic organic-style church set up that some posters fondly envisage can end up any differently. It will simply end up with a different set of problems and challenges. That's life. Get over it.
This reminds me of what my ex-minister used to say: 'If you find the perfect church, don't join it because you'll only ruin it.' This always struck me as a counsel of despair! But never mind. When I eventually find myself well beyond all thoughts of magic, the CofE will still be there, waiting quietly. Every church has a role to play!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Of course the CofE and other historical churches benefit from influxes from more apparently 'organic' forms of church. It happens all the time. I keep meeting ex-members of congregational forms of church in the CofE ...
And yes, there's a circularity about the whole thing. New groups form and are either absorbed back into the mainstream, as it were, or else spin off into some kind of sectarian spiral. It has ever been thus. Even Robert Browne, the first of the English Separatists, returned to the CofE and became a rural vicar.
I s'pose what I'm driving at is that it should, theoretically, be possible to be both organic and linked to something institutional at one and the same time. Fresh Expressions and so on.
As for those groups which separate and remain separate, I'm not saying they are failures or anything of the kind. Simply that they have to form their own plausibility structures and ways of regulating themselves.
I'm suggesting that this task would inevitably become harder the less they are connected to the mainstream or the broader tradition.
Imagine if thee, me and EE, South Coast Kevin and ExclamationMark all lived in the same geographical area and started meeting 'organically'. How soon would it be, do you think, before a split erupted or before someone began to set the agenda more than the others?
We are all quite gobby, it seems to me, in our different ways so the chances of it working out in some nice, cosy, organic way would be pretty remote I suspect ... unless we all signed up to something that was bigger than ourselves and larger than our constituent parts - as it were.
As for the theological basis for any of this ... well, if we are inclined towards a more sacramental or sacerdotal understanding then that is obviously going to determine the way things work out ... there'd be a priest in the mix somewhere or other.
If, on the other hand, we weren't that way inclined then we are going to incline towards one or other of the available options it seems to me ... either a presbyterian or a congregational model or some kind of mix of the two.
I really can't see how it could develop in any other way.
The idea of a nice, loose, fluid and organic 'non-denominational', non-heirarchical fellowship is all very well and good on paper, but I just can't see how it could work out in practice ... without it either drifting outside the received 'norms' of historic, creedal Christianity or else becoming so vague as to become almost meaningless or heretical and/or abusive in some way.
I keep coming back to this thing about checks and balances. What checks and balances would there be if thee, me and the others formed our own organic fellowship? Ultimately there'd be a power struggle. Whoever shouted the loudest might win the day and the others would probably clear off somewhere else. What would that achieve?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE]
1. but a key point of the organic church 'thing' is, as SvitlanaV2 noted above, that everyone involved is expected to contribute, and thus it's less likely that abusive environments and theological heresy will develop.
2. From what I've read (but not from any real personal experience, I hasten to add), this should - and often does - lead to a Christian community where people are less likely to fall victim to a plausible-sounding heresy.
Thanks SKK
1. Expecting people to do or be anything can be considered abusive, if they just don't want to be or do anything.
2. That should be true but IME it isn't. I've been "involved" with church planting at a number of levels (some nationally) on and off for 20 years or more and my idealism on what ought to happen has been sadly dented by some of the excesses I've seen and some I've been asked to help sort out. It hasn't been pretty.
What stops a small group from becoming dominant?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What stops a small group from becoming dominant?
Structures.
Which is what traditional denomination have in spades (though this can cause other problems).
I can see no reason why self regulation in churches should result in anything different to self regulation in industry, and it ain't pretty.
The fact that house churches become denominations is a good sign that given time there will be structures put in place that local leaders will become responsible to someone.
In the meantime things will go well and things will go badly, but it won't be boring.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
The authors I've come across aren't arguing for isolationism, and I'm sure there are some examples of FE that might count as organic churches. However, in many places finding an FE is no less difficult than finding an independent organic church. If local institutional congregations and their leaders are unwilling or unable to develop an FE along these lines then an individual might have no option but to start afresh. But these days it be must easier for independent groups to avoid 'cultishness' and to stay connected and informed than it was in the 80s - 90s.
Regarding the theology of church structures, my main concern is that there seems to be an unofficial form of church theology that's rarely questioned or explored. E.g., why are churchgoers often accused of expecting their clergy to do everything? Why is it theologically wholesome that 20% of churchgoers do 80% of the work in the church? Where do these ideas, so easily replicated, come from? The official places offer no answers regarding questions like these, so it's quite reasonable that ordinary Christians occasionally try to provide their own.
Also, are the so-called 'checks and balances' of the mainstream (let alone all institutional) churches such a big deal? Why do we have so many competing denominations if every member of the mainstream churches has been well-schooled in orthodoxy and the importance of maintaining structures? If keeping everyone in line is so important, it hasn't worked very well. But IMO such control isn't really the issue. It's apparent that Christianity simply doesn't function well without theological diversity - and I include structural diversity in this. Striving to be different and better may seem misguided, but the alternative in our culture seems to be widespread indifference, not orthodoxy and clerical control....
Of course, Middle England isn't California. Viola's work doesn't speak specifically to the problems in the British church. It would be good to see more British engagement with his (and other similar) writing. I've just come across a very interesting, and fairly brief British commentary that sees Viola's church planting ideas as perfectly applicable to cell churches within a wider institutional context:
http://www.alisonmorgan.co.uk/Viola%202009.pdf
If pdf links aren't possible just type 'Alison Morgan Frank Viola' into Google. I haven't read the book that Alison refers to, but I've read the two previous ones.
[ 19. October 2013, 20:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I certainly don't want to over-idealize the RSOF--as Exclamation Mark suggests, the opposite pole from cultish charismatic leadership is passive-aggressive cliqueishness, and we certainly have a tendency to fall into that from time to time. It tends to be self-limiting, however, and this may be due to the formal structures of committees, monthly and yearly meetings, etc. (It is also in the nature of such cliques to fall apart eventually, but for the last century it hasn't resulted in schism). And we have people who are in influential positions and who have more influence (we call them "weighty Friends"). But there is no one who, by virtue of either personality or office, is empowered to tell others what to believe or to do (we're not merely non-creedal, we're anti-creedal--and what Exclamation Mark or anyone else thinks of our status as Christians is a matter of indifference). In any case, it's fluid, but far from incoherent. It does require a great deal of patience.
Anyway, my point was primarily that it is possible to have a church that is fluid, horizontal, and self regulating, without falling into cultishness.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think indifference is indeed the issue, irrespective of how we 'do' (or 'be'?) church.
I'll meet you half-way, SvitlanaV2, whilst completely agreeing with ExclamationMark that small groups and an 'organic' approach do not, in and of themselves, guarantee the absence of abuse.
I would suggest that if there is some kind of Pareto's Law, or 80/20 rule operating in terms of people's involvement that this is more of a group-dynamic and sociological thing than a theological one.
If you've not come across it, Pareto's Law (and its variants) suggest that 20% of a business's customers generate 80% of the turnover or that 20% of the people do 80% of the work or 20% of the ...
I think it's inevitable for a range of factors for there to end up with a smaller number of people doing the bulk of the work when it comes to a small organisation or organic form of church.
I can't see how it would pan out in any other way. People have got lives. People have commitments. Heck, some people even have interests outside of church ...
I think it would be more difficult for independent groups to remain isolated in this internet age, but the web itself offers plenty of scope for abusive behaviour.
I would suggest, though, that if someone finds themselves somewhere where they find few of the local church expressions to their liking, for whatever reason - then the online world does create opportunities and possibilities - even if it's only for 'chat' and for researching what's around and what's going on further afield.
I'm not particularly 'struck' on any of the churches within my town but that doesn't mean I ought to start my own. All that would do would be to create something that I might like but which would't necessarily appeal to anyone else. What's the point?
But then, I've got access to other things I like to be involved with so I can put up with the situation as it stands.
And it's not all about me anyway.
There is no magic bullet. To say there's no such thing as the perfect church and that if you or I joined it we'd spoil it isn't the counsel of despair but simply an accurate assessment of where things are at. If I formed my own organic group tomorrow there'd be something wrong with it from the outset because there's something wrong with me. As there is with all of us.
Inevitably, I suspect, we will all have to find ways of doing church that fit the decline of Christendom and the rise of an increasingly secularised and indifferent society. So, yes, reflection and preparation is needed.
I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the idea - and I'm not saying you're articulating this SvitlanaV2 - that if only we could ditch clericalism, denominational structures and creedal constraints then everything in the garden is going to be rosy.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but I think SvitlanaV2's link to that Frank Viola article and Alison Morgan's notes have helped answer my opening question in the OP.
Q: How can organic churches regulate themselves?
A: By adopting structures just like everyone else ...
Seriously, is it just me or has anyone else read that Frank Viola piece and marvelled at how utterly prescriptive it is?
I mean, they're even setting a dress code: 'dress informally'.
So, what happens if you have someone who is 70 and is used to dressing up for church or who believes it's right to do so?
Tell them to sod off and join a more formal group?
Try to change their minds?
I notice the emphasis on apostolic, itinerant ministry ... so there we go, immediately you've got a network and a structure. All 'apostles' are in this context are bishops with a fancy name. Rather like the bishops that already exist in some Pentecostal denominations.
It all sounds very attractive until you start to unpack it and think through some of the implications.
'Remove foreign elements - everything that is not Jesus'.
So, how does the group discern what is or what is not 'Jesus'? And isn't this likely to lead to a kind of legalism or puritanism?
What if Member X believes that, say, candles and liturgy are foreign elements and not 'Jesus' and Member Y believes that they are?
What if Member Q wants to bring prophecies and so on and Members R and S aren't comfortable with that practice?
What happens when someone with substance-dependency or mental health problems turns up? Where does the group go for specialist help?
What happens when 'worship wars' break out about the sung part of the meeting (which sounds like a 'service' to me, only one which doesn't want to acknowledge itself as such)?
How can a group of this kind avoid institutionalism to some extent? It's physically impossible. Sorry, I'm not convinced.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not particularly 'struck' on any of the churches within my town but that doesn't mean I ought to start my own. All that would do would be to create something that I might like but which would't necessarily appeal to anyone else. What's the point?
The obvious Protestant answer is that some people might feel called to the task by the Holy Spirit. Just as clever, sensitive men and women might feel called by the Holy Spirit to be ordained to serve in the CofE, or anywhere else. If you don't feel called then don't do it.
quote:
To say there's no such thing as the perfect church and that if you or I joined it we'd spoil it isn't the counsel of despair but simply an accurate assessment of where things are at. If I formed my own organic group tomorrow there'd be something wrong with it from the outset because there's something wrong with me. As there is with all of us.
Obviously there's no such thing as the perfect church. But the phrase implies that the individual should repress their desire - which may be God-given! - to find or create a holy space where they and others like them can serve God freely, in a way that feels authentic to them. This discouragement is what sets my teeth on edge, I'm afraid.
The organic church, as you've recognised, could never take the role of a church like the CofE. It's not a form of church or spirituality that you just dip into and out of, as your other activities and interests permit. It requires too much effort, and too much personal and emotional involvement. In that sense it's almost the opposite of the CofE, which tries to be a 'one stop shop' for all levels of spirituality and involvement. Both types of church (and those that try to straddle them) have their pros and cons.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, what happens if you have someone who is 70 and is used to dressing up for church or who believes it's right to do so?
Tell them to sod off and join a more formal group?
Well, I'm sure it can be dealt with on a case by case basis. But what's wrong with going to a church where you're comfortable? If you can't agree with your brothers and sisters you can depart from them in love and find a home elsewhere. I really can't see the problem with doing that! It's why having a diversity of churches is such a positive thing, IMO.
As for someone with substance abuse; aren't there secular organisations to whom they can be referred? I doubt that the average CofE/Baptist/Methodist congregation has specialists who can deal with such issues themselves; they help people to find specialist help, while continuing to offer encouragement and support if they can.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Having been part of a CofE church which had an extreme evangelical church operating within it, I can say that anything seems to go as long as you call it 'Housegroup' or 'Housechurch' and have an approving, or very laid-back vicar. Because there are no checks except 'The Holy Spirit told me to'. That has ramifications, these days, for Fresh Expressions - a lot of leeway is given to such groups when they are first starting out, as they may well provide fruit. But the possibility of going way off track is always there, as an ever-present danger, so I would like to see some sort of oversight in place, just in case...
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok ... let me give an example, SvitlanaV2. I've been asked to contribute some poems to an arty event that a local URC minister is running next Lent. The idea is that it may have some spin-offs into some creative writing workshops and discussion etc.
Because of the nature of the material I've told him that if a short study group or creative writing group spun off from it then I would want him to be there just in case there's anyone who has 'issues' - bereavement, the memory of past illness or abuse etc etc.
Why have I done that?
Because I know he's had adequate training in these things and I haven't.
If someone had 'issues' in a small 8+ organic group then how would they deal with it? Unless they were able to refer people to the appropriate professionals and so on they could end up making matters worse.
Coming back to the kind of model that Viola and Alison Morgan outline in that paper ... I'd have probably wanted to belong to a group like that at one stage. Now I'd run a country-mile.
Far better, in my view, to have something to dip in and out of than what sounds to me like an incredibly claustrophobic and smothering kind of group. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in meeting with a small group of people and sharing what songs I like and what I may or may not want to do in 5 years time. It's none of their sodding business.
That organic church thing looks like a recipe for insularity, spiritual navel-gazing and lack of engagement with the world around us. A bunch of misfits meeting in someone's front room. Heck, it'd be worse than these boards ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
If ministers have such training that's great, but most probably don't. What then?
But I think we've reached a conclusion here. You're happy now as a sensible Anglican, and have an very high regard for what the ordained clergy and the structures of your church are able to achieve. That's totally okay. You know your local circumstances better than I do, and it sounds as though things are working reasonably well. But others may be in a different place, with different spiritual needs, and trying to work with different circumstances. Your solution might not be right for them - that's all I'm saying.
Now, I've got to go and find a convenient Anglican church to attend, so I'll speak to you later!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2 - you seem, if I may say so, rather hung-up on my being an Anglican. I happen to worship - by default more than anything else - at my parish church. Before I moved here I was happily involved with a Baptist church.
I'm not particularly happy in my parish church as plenty of people here can testify because I used to bore them to death moaning about it.
I don't moan about it so much now, thank goodness. Not because I'm happier but because I'm working on ways to find some kind of accommodation with the situation I find myself in and because I have other fish to fry beyond what church I may or may not attend on a Sunday morning.
I'm not sure I'm any more 'sensible' than any other Anglican or Baptist, Methodist, organic-church person etc etc ...
But what I do know is that laudable though experiments like the sort of thing Viola is harping on about (or celloing on about perhaps) are, they invariably involve some kind of standards and structures. Heck, the whole of that pdf article was shot through with them even down to what people should wear, how the temperature should be set and how many songs they should sing.
If that's organic, I'm a Dutchman.
I honestly don't mind a bit if you found a spiritual home in an organic set-up - if such there be - in a Friends' Meeting House, in a Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal or whatever else church ... I'd be pleased for you wherever you ended up.
You seem to assume that because I'm sceptical of the kind of claims made by the Viola-type crowd that I think everything else in the garden is rosy. I don't.
Listen to what I'm saying, not to what you think I'm saying.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Every church has its issues. I've already said that.
I was going to post a longish reply about institutionalisation, the clergy being overworked and lay versus ordained leaders, etc., but you're cross with me again, so I won't. I will say that a plant might grow 'organically', but it still requires the right conditions in which to grow. God provides the sunshine, but a good gardener still prepares the soil.
Where I go to church is of no great importance to the world.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not cross with you at all, SvitlanaV2. I apologise if I sounded exasperated in my post. I'd be on the same page as you when it comes to clergy-burn out and so on ... and indeed the various issues and problems that beset institutional churches.
All I'm suggesting is that organic churches would simply end up with a different set of problems. In seeking to resolve some of the issues all they effectively do is create others.
That doesn't mean that nobody should try, simply that they should be realistic about what the can and can't achieve.
I'm quite sure that organic-style churches would suit some people some of the time and I know you're not putting them forward as a panacea for all ills, as Viola seems to do.
I suspect also that different 'styles' suit different people at different stages. I was all up for the kind of thing Viola's recommending when I was in my 20s and 30s. Now, such a prospect would give me the screaming ab-dabs.
That's not to say it would be 'wrong' for anyone else, of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
