Community vs. Collaboration
Recently finishing a book entitled, A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change.
I recommend it if you are interested.
One little gem in this book speaks of communities an collectives. Here is the section I find interesting (emphasis added):
A collective is very different from an ordinary community. Whereas communities can be passive (though no all of them are by any means) collectives cannot. In communities, people learn in order to belong. In a collective, people belong in order to learn. Communities derive their strength from creating a sense of belonging, while collectives derive theirs from participation.
This little distinction seems to capture the tension between what I can best describe as modern and post-modern leadership in the Church. Bot a community and a collective have their place, but it seems to me that more and more of my peers and those younger than me (post-moderns) long for collectives.
We live in a Facebook time in which we have a sense of "belonging" (even if it is superficial at times). I have belonging, but I do not have collective.
Each small group that I have been a part of that contains a critical mass of post-moderns builds itself as a community. This is what they have been taught, this is what their parents and their grand parents set up small groups communities. They are groups of people who come together in order to belong to one another. So social activities take precedence over spiritual formation or missional outreach.
And each small group with a critical mass of post-moderns eventually folds under lack of interest.
Could it be that the models of creating community are no longer effective in creating and building a Church?
Could it be that the models of creating collectives are more effective?
Could it be why wikipedia is so popular? It is a collective in which people belong in order to learn. Could it be that Churches who expect people to learn how to belong are building communities which no longer meet the need or address the world?
Could it be that Churches could lead the way in collective building?
It seems to me that Jesus had a collective of 12 and was rejected by his community.
Maybe Jesus was onto something.
I recommend it if you are interested.
One little gem in this book speaks of communities an collectives. Here is the section I find interesting (emphasis added):
A collective is very different from an ordinary community. Whereas communities can be passive (though no all of them are by any means) collectives cannot. In communities, people learn in order to belong. In a collective, people belong in order to learn. Communities derive their strength from creating a sense of belonging, while collectives derive theirs from participation.
We live in a Facebook time in which we have a sense of "belonging" (even if it is superficial at times). I have belonging, but I do not have collective.
Each small group that I have been a part of that contains a critical mass of post-moderns builds itself as a community. This is what they have been taught, this is what their parents and their grand parents set up small groups communities. They are groups of people who come together in order to belong to one another. So social activities take precedence over spiritual formation or missional outreach.
Could it be that the models of creating community are no longer effective in creating and building a Church?
Could it be that the models of creating collectives are more effective?
Could it be why wikipedia is so popular? It is a collective in which people belong in order to learn. Could it be that Churches who expect people to learn how to belong are building communities which no longer meet the need or address the world?
Could it be that Churches could lead the way in collective building?
It seems to me that Jesus had a collective of 12 and was rejected by his community.
Maybe Jesus was onto something.
What a Quaker, Jersey Shore, and Lord of the Rings have in common
The other day I heard a quote from a Quaker, last name Trueblood, that was shared in a sermon by Bishop Lowey on June 7th. I cannot recall the quote directly but it went something like this:
The nature of the Church is fellowship, that we can agree upon. It is the nature of that fellowship that is vital and up for discussion.
This is a great way to talk about what I have been talking about in my local setting for years now. It is not that I am not against having church so that we can have a "church family" for whom will bring us meals when we are sick or have social time with on the weekends. I am not against that sort of fellowship at all, I just wonder if that is the fellowship of the Church that we ought to be working toward?
I hear many people talk about their church fellowship like one might think of the Brady Bunch, the Odd Couple or even the Jersey Shore. That is a group of people from different backgrounds coming together to try to live together. They have their disagreements and their good times, but ultimately they are just trying to survive and navigate life's ups and downs.
Frankly, I am not that interested in a Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship. From my perspective, these fellowships serve a function that is very inwardly focused. That is these fellowships are interested in what makes them feel good and what makes them happy. I am not knocking this fellowship type at all, I just am not interested in it. I have areas in my life where I am self centered and seek to fulfill my own happiness as well, but I do not think the Church should be that place.
The Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship seems to stand in contrast to the fellowship that I feel the Church is called to do and be. One might think of this form of fellowship of The Lord of the Ring. This "fellowship" had a mission and a greater purpose they all worked toward. Some were not so great at it. They were diverse (an elf AND a dwarf!) and they got along as best as they could. There are some relationships there were tighter than others (Sam and Frodo seemed close but not as close as Pip and Merry). Some died. Some lived. Some did not see each other for long stretches of time. There was happy times and not happy times, but they all moved in one accord. They had purpose and meaning greater than themselves.
And while I do not agree that the myth of redemptive violence that is found in the LotR is in line with the nature of the Church, I do believe that LotR better understands the fellowship of the Church that Trueblood was talking about.
The nature of the Church is fellowship, that we can agree upon. It is the nature of that fellowship that is vital and up for discussion.
This is a great way to talk about what I have been talking about in my local setting for years now. It is not that I am not against having church so that we can have a "church family" for whom will bring us meals when we are sick or have social time with on the weekends. I am not against that sort of fellowship at all, I just wonder if that is the fellowship of the Church that we ought to be working toward?
I hear many people talk about their church fellowship like one might think of the Brady Bunch, the Odd Couple or even the Jersey Shore. That is a group of people from different backgrounds coming together to try to live together. They have their disagreements and their good times, but ultimately they are just trying to survive and navigate life's ups and downs. Frankly, I am not that interested in a Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship. From my perspective, these fellowships serve a function that is very inwardly focused. That is these fellowships are interested in what makes them feel good and what makes them happy. I am not knocking this fellowship type at all, I just am not interested in it. I have areas in my life where I am self centered and seek to fulfill my own happiness as well, but I do not think the Church should be that place.
The Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship seems to stand in contrast to the fellowship that I feel the Church is called to do and be. One might think of this form of fellowship of The Lord of the Ring. This "fellowship" had a mission and a greater purpose they all worked toward. Some were not so great at it. They were diverse (an elf AND a dwarf!) and they got along as best as they could. There are some relationships there were tighter than others (Sam and Frodo seemed close but not as close as Pip and Merry). Some died. Some lived. Some did not see each other for long stretches of time. There was happy times and not happy times, but they all moved in one accord. They had purpose and meaning greater than themselves.
And while I do not agree that the myth of redemptive violence that is found in the LotR is in line with the nature of the Church, I do believe that LotR better understands the fellowship of the Church that Trueblood was talking about.
"I will pray for you."
Of the many phrases that ministers use, one that might be the most common might be "I will pray for you."
It has become aware to me that that phrase may be misunderstood by people.
When I say "I will pray for you", I do not mean I will not just add you to a laundry list of people or situations. I will not just pray "for you" as one might ask God to provide you something as just one of many voices that will also ask, and thus operate like nagging children to a parent. I will not just pray for you as a way of thinking of you for a moment.
I will not pray for you so that you do not have to pray.
Rather, when I say I will pray for you I mean that in light of your situation, you may not be able to pray for yourself. You may be in a situation that is difficult or troubling that results in your inability to pray. Perhaps you are so overjoyed in life that you are unable to focus on praying for the least, last and lost of the world. Perhaps you are so down that you cannot pray for new life, new creation and resurrection.
It is in these situations that I will pray for you.
I will pray for you when you cannot pray for yourself.
This ought to be part of the reason why we go to worship on Sunday regardless of your state of mind.
Perhaps you cannot pray that day - the community of the Body of Christ will pray for you.
Perhaps you cannot sing that day - the community of the Body of Christ will sing for you.
Perhaps you cannot listen that day - the community of the Body of Christ will listen for you.
Perhaps you cannot lament that day - the community of the Body of Christ will lament for you.
I will pray for you when you cannot pray yourself, because we are the Body of Christ. We are the Church.
I know that there are days for which I cannot pray, sing, listen or lament...
and I know the Body of Christ will do that for me.
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.