I've been thinking about belonging, for most of the past decade. We all need it, deeply. The most highly sought after form is belonging by invitation. To be chosen, rocks. To be chosen means we've been seen, recognized, and valued. However, to be first pick, first draft, captain, or valedictorian, has much greater value than to be in the middle of the pack, where your value may be that you are less of a liability than the next pick. Like those players that sports teams pick up, for the sole purpose of padding a future trade deal. In the middle you are just a space holder, and that won't fill your longing to belong.
Most of us don't get picked first, that's just a numerical reality. In fact, most of us don't get picked as much as we strategically position ourselves, even transform or conform, to the values of the community we hope to belong to. In effect, we hide our flaws and present our strengths. We lie. How many of us, when asked at a job interview about our collaborative skills, would say, " Well, actually I'm very creative, and make great use of critical thinking and deconstruction. Some call me recalcitrant, but it's all with a view to developing a better widget." Not likely, so we bend.
What we truly long for, and I believe this is universal, is belonging because we are valued, warts and all. We need to be seen, discovered, and embraced, or even better, engaged. This takes time, but few opportunities to belong are structured to listen carefully to those on the margins. Most communities operate on the basis of compliance, and conformity. You must observe the ways, demonstrate behavioural compliance, and then you can belong, although it will feel more like being passively accepted or even tolerated.
The whole idea of conforming to a norm in order to fit, is all about preserving the idea as defined by the founders. The fear of morphing into something else is the great concern. The problem is that the norm becomes the average, or the median of the interpretation of the original idea. Even when carefully protected by constitution and doctrine, the original is compromised. Normal is the space between a carefully filtered group of uniquely designed individuals. Normal does not exist, except as a way of generally defining a range or spectrum of acceptable expression. Normal is limited.
My conclusion is that churches, and even para-church organizations, are not qualified to call themselves communities–at least not organically. They are by biblical definition, a group of one accord, and that accord is often in the form of a creed, or at least a list of core values. Too often, churches are defined by a tried and (declared) true theological construct that is included in the "conform to these" list. Sadly, some even require that you leave all of your uniqueness at the door, believing there is nothing good within. This sure doesn't meet the need to be seen, discovered, valued and embraced.
If you haven't picked up on what I think community is, let me lay it out for you. Community is everyone with in the sound of your voice, that hears your voice, listens to your words, discovers the real you, and embraces that real you. The "Good News" is when you do that to others.
Matthew 22:37-39
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
In my next blog I will wonder about knowledge.
Wayne, I love this picture you paint here. I'm not sure if you've encountered it before, but Jack Caputo - via Jacques Derrida - makes an interesting point about how the word community etymologically comes from the similar root of "munitions" - meaning that the very idea of community is to build walls and exclude. I think most of us would agree that the communities we've been a part of have fulfilled this prophecy all too well. The problem, for me, is coming up with a better word than community. I can no longer endorse - or try to redeem - the word church.
ReplyDeleteInteresting Rob. I wasn't thinking of it that way. In fact I see many churches including community in both their name and their strategy, in a tone that sounds inclusive. Even in more secular conversations about community development, it's often suggested that community is the product of its members. I point to Peter Block's book, Community, The Structure of Belonging. It's been a couple of years but I believe he suggests that communities need to evolve in accordance with new membership, rather than a creed or constitution. Otherwise they aren't current, and or they aren't really listening to new members, unless they spew the party line. Meaning is a tricky think. I think that we often think we agree on things, but may actually be holding divergently evolved meanings of the word. Community may be one. Most believing it is a welcoming growing structure, when it really means a club for people just like us. Church is a really messed up word, which often means community, as in club. It may have been meant to mean the living and diverse expression of all believers, which in a Generous Orthodoxy world would include all of the religious, philosophical, science believers.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I included the verse, "love your neighbour" is because I think that loving them is including them in your space, even if they are different, or especially because they are different.
My head hurts.
Yep, churches can talk about community but not be very accepting of others. And yes church is a messed up word that has become really disconnected from the organic households of faith we see in the New Testament...
ReplyDeleteA couple of things to think about...
- By nature communities have norms. A common identity will form in any community and norms will emerge.
- The bible talks about community in Christ - not something we create but something that exists because we belong to king Jesus. Which apparently involves denying ourselves and following Jesus (Luke 9:23)... humm sounds like there is an external norm - Jesus the testimony of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2)
- To top it off this community is not only centred around Christ but is part of his plan to 'Transform' us into the image of Christ (Rom 12:1-2). And to make him known in the world (Eph 3) . Again it's not defined by the members but it is defining us.
- And then we also have letters written to Timothy and Titus that talk about setting these communities 'in order' (Titus 1). An expectation that our structure and relationships be defined by what Paul calls a revealed administration or plan(See Eph 3:7-12).
At the end of the day Jesus-Centred community has norms, structure, a shared identity in Christ, and the purpose and intent of making disciples.
The problem churches face isn't creed or statements of faith as much as it is the failure to recognize that most of the cultural norms we're upholding aren't based on the organic household patters and principles given to us in scripture. They've become self-serving and they are based more on Roman ideas and Enlightenment principles - the stuff of Western Culture. We've built churches that are centred on human traditions rather than the way of Christ and his Apostles.