First, I want to emphasize how much I appreciate this forum - particularly this set of posters who manage to maintain civility and love, even while debating things that are so personally meaningful and fraught with disagreement. Its speaks a lot. And do forgive me when I get lit up on something.... there are some topics I've spent so much time wrestling with, its hard to maintain an even keel... So, thanks for your patience (especially since I think this might be a little long....
)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I will try, yes. Sorry. In my defense I was just trying understand where you are coming from.
|
We're good. I'll give it another go to try to lay out how this contorted head of mine works....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
When I said a group is not an entity, I meant it doesn't have a consciousness apart from the sum of the members. It can seem to, but it doesn't.
Obviously the members can decide to have an agenda as a group. This can be through consensus, through majority, or through the decision of a leading body or person. Groups do it all the time. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.
|
Well,
sometimes there's nothing wrong with it and there
other times when there's a LOT wrong with it.
It's similar to when philosophers think about politics (this is an analogy to a principle, not an analogy about the place of leaders - keep this in mind). The ideal form of government is a benevelant despot. Its efficient, its good for the people etc.... The problems is, if you set up your
model based on a single ruler, sure the
first guy might be benevelant (early Americans wanted George Washington to be king - and he would have been a good one), the
next guy might not be, but you didn't build in any protections
into the model against abuse. So the founders set up
principles and
procedures to cabin in abuse
nto the model.
You are right that there exist a lot of groups with agendas doing great things and not hurting anyone (though I'll expound on that later.... not all may be what it seems). But if the foundational principles you teach about
church don't build in the cautions or protections, then it becomes all too easy for humans to replace reliance on God with "Their concept of God" and impose it - (most) often subconsciously - upon their members, quelching individual believers' spirits, though of course never intending to. Again, human sociology is pretty robust on this. Its what humans do.
Living by faith is HARD. Going with the group isn't all that hard. The two are NOT mutually exclusive - but the latter makes it more difficult to do the former, while the former often
leads you to do the latter.
It's a matter of entailment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
As for an example of group dynamics in the church, Paul addresses the churches as groups. He says "you" again and again meaning the whole church. He thanks churches for their gifts given as a group (that's a work). Also, Paul's exhortation to be of one mind does not seem to reflect the reservation about groups that you have.
|
Yes, I noticed this. Also in Revelation 2-3, the Spirit says "to the churches" and calls the entity "you" as in "I know your works" etc...
Here's the thing on that: Groups who simply meet regularly, are involved in eachother's families and generally spend a lot of time together - will develop a group
identity and there can even develop group
behavior. I flavor etc.... In that sense, I think it makes sense one would reference the whole group which discussing a characteristic of the group or behavior which occurred within the group.
But notice in Rev. 2-3: While the Spirit
addresses a plural "you" in describing the situation in that church, the
call to action, that is the
call to agency is to the individual, "to him who overcomes" or "he who has an ear."
"Identity" and "agency" are two different things. Groups are shown to have "identity" (characteristics) in the Bible, but I don't see any examples of group "agency."
Agency seems to be initiated by God to individuals - who
then may be joing by others under the original individual or in cooperation since they were independantly commissioned for the same. But parting ways regarding "work" (such as Paul and Barnabas) is entirely appropriate, since each individual has to answer to the Lord regarding how he was commissioned. Group's parting ways because of differing "agendas" is called division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Now, I understand your caution about groups and agree with it generally. There is a danger. But I don't think the solution is to hamstring groups. I think the solution is to limit their scope.
|
(I'd be interested to know what you mean by "scope.")
I want to address your question regarding my distinction between assembly and "work" or "ministry."
This is born out of study, experience (both my own and those, much older and experienced than I).
First, an anecdote from my experience: not long after I had stopped meeting with the LC, I met a great group of Christians while in grad school. It turned out that they all went to the same church - kind of a "House Church" sort of movement. The theology and practice were very orthodox in my view, with a side of "good energy" (though I admit my radar for "orthodox" was pretty warped by the LC). That said, it was Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus, OH - they have a LOT of info on their site - so I'd welcome anyone's "orthodox" assessment....
In any event, I spent a lot of time with these believers, in and out of "church-related" activities. Some of them had started creative writing workshops and "poetry slams". There was a lot of positive energy and positive engagement with the world.
There was a weekly leader-led Bible study, with a time for comments at the end. There were large young-people meetings and a diverse congregation on Sunday. Then after a while, I keep asking a few of the guys if they wanted to get together to do a more "intense" and mutual study of the Bible. They invited me to the "cell group" meeting.
The "cell group" Bible study was GREAT! After a few weeks, however, the tone got more serious. The brothers I was spending a lot of time with wanted "more comittment" to the cell group. The church had its own "mission," and if I wanted to continue going to the cell group Bible study, I had to commit to the mission of Xenos.
I, as you can imagine, balked at this.
Now, there was good reason for their request for heightened committment. The "cell group" was actually their forum for discipling leaders to plant the next house church. Once a gathering got bigger than a certain amount and they had 3 leaders trained, they would "split."
Given that the "cell group" had a
ministry component - its
purpose was "the work," it made sense that if you wanted to be part of it, you had to commit.
I just wanted a mutual Bible study. I didn't feel comfortable "signing" the "mission" of a subset of Christians.
I thought I was just assembling with fellow believers, requiring nothing of me but my love of the Lord and desire for mutual edification. Instead, I was sitting in the midst of "the work," which does require "soldiers."
Igzy, I actually think their requirement of "more committment" in order to be part of "the work" was entirely appropriate. Those brothers felt
personally commissioned by the Lord to pursue that work. If some other schmoe like me wanted to
join their personal comission it is appropriate that it is on
their terms and that
I submit to their terms.
The problem was that this "work" was mixed in with what I thought was just "assembly." A coupla brothers of varying experience and study, getting together -
assembling - to study God's word. It turned out, unless you were committed to "the work" - the "agenda" - of the group, there wasn't much mutually "just" to fellowship, study and mutually encourage one another. You were "second class."
I was going to share another example from the life of someone much more experienced than I, but I think I've rambled enough for one post....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Regarding me doing that same the the local-grounders are doing: That comment is just mistaken. Saying that God can and does use human devices is not the same thing as trying to leverage a human device to bring everyone under one's rule.
LCers are right that cities are ordained by God. They are wrong to say that means everyone needs to submit to the city eldership their movement designates. I'm not saying anything approaching that. Please be careful about specious conclusions.
|
I do want to address this, but perhaps another post (do remind me). But to be clear, I wasn't saying you were, in fact, in the shoes of the "local-grounders." It was an "if-then" argument. If the "if" isn't true, than the analogy isn't valid.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
When I said sad, it wasn't a put down. I was just saying it's sad when someone has trouble connecting with others and cooperating with others because of group fear. It's the same thing as saying it's sad that someone can't enjoy a healthy sex life because of sexual abuse. It isn't a put down, it's just an observation. Trust me, I speak from experience.
The LC messed up a lot of people in regards to having healthy, balanced relationships with the Body of Christ. I understand that because I've been through it. I'm just pushing for a healthy reaction to that. I don't think completely draining groups of any group identity or team spirit is the answer. I think the answer is realizing that no group is perfect or unlimited in scope. You can leave if you want. But if you decide to stay, it's nice to be able to jump in and enjoy it, and not always feel you need to be emotionally insulated because of fear of exploitation.
|
Well said. I'm just perhaps suggesting a middle ground between "jump in" versus "just leave." There's no making it better? Where does contrary input come in?
Too much for one post....
In Love,
Peter