Utopian Dreams
22 May 2007
As promised I’m following up the post below with some responses to Tobias Jones, who spent time travelling and living in different communities, to understand and explore the oft expressed desire of people for ‘authentic community’.
Taking his findings I’ve reworked some of them as suggestions for church community, let me know what you think of them.
1. By-Product: Gathering for and to achieve ‘community’ is a conceit, and illusive, we need a focus other than ‘community, it is byproduct of doing something meaningful together.
2. Need: We don’t need each other any more in a consumer society, and community is about needing. We can get by without each other any more, consumerism means we can buy the things we need. We gift ourselves to each other, as we need others.
3. Renounce Choice: Community cannot be built if you are going to leave. The closing of choices, of choosing finality leads to community. How many of us think we are going to somewhere better later, and we hold ourselves back in the meantime. Consumer choice, the holding open in non commitment, be it where I live, my relationships my job, stops community.
4. Open and Focused: Being open to others, so a process of constant learning and growth, but also doing so focused around mission and core stabilities enables community.
5. Clear Rules: Rules about beliefs and actions, and practices rather than ‘be who you want to be, come and play and be community’. Rules of faith, rules of mission, beliefs and values that are articulated and practiced produce communities.
6. Community Aesthetics: Talk about community doesn’t make community, nor does re-ording the aesthetics of community life unless it is in service to these other issues. Community is doing life together in all it’s mess.
7. Hierarchy, & Leadership: are needed for community, openness to the leading from others and learning, letting go of my right to chose all the time etc, produce community. Too much hierachy kills community, too little kills community too. We need coaches, mentors, trainers, disciplers etc.
8. Shared Labour: Working together (physically especially), serving together produces community. See St Benedict to Simone Weil.
27 comments
Trackback
Comment by GMD
4.21 pm on 22 May 2007
This is very interesting to me. I decided a few weeks ago after a lot of time reading and thinking that I want to put together a website to gather information regarding the formation and building there of community in 4 main areas; Local community – church community – online community and community in the workplace. I already have parties interested in the workplace stuff. More on this as and when :)
I’m off now to go and order that book and add it to the pile to read!
Comment by fernando
5.40 pm on 22 May 2007
Very thoughtful list. Items 1, 4, 6 and 8 seem unproblematic and resonant to me. 2 and 7 are a little vague, but I’m guessing if you expanded on them, it would be a direction I’d agree with.
5 is fine if, by rule, you mean habit/practice/discipline, or maybe principle in a meta sense. But, rule as regulation, dominion or even customary state (in an inert sense) would be problematic for me.
That just leaves 3 and whilst I initially agreed (and still think you are onto a good insight) I have to say it doesn’t mesh with my experience. I found real and profound community amongst fellow believers in India despite the clock ticking for all us. It seems common biography that peope find community on the missionfield in the midst of movement and relocation, etc. I think there *is* something here about renouncing choice, about satisficing rather than maximising that is needed for community, but it maybe it isn’t just about closing the horizon of moving on down – but being willing to be truely open while you are there?
Comment by Jason
5.53 pm on 22 May 2007
Hi Fernado, yes in usual blog fashion I just threw those up there!
2. Need: The nature of consumerism is that we avoid needing others, we buy in what we need, and avoid giving ourselves to others, perfering them to purchase what they need.
7. Hierachy: The longest paragraph above :-) In the movement from structure to agency, we are phobic about understanding ourselves in relationship to others who lead us perhaps.
5. Rule: in the non perjorative sense. relational and mutual submission, compared to the group hegemony of ‘every one can do what they want’, or ‘I decide what everyone does’ rules.
3. Is aimed at the western world, of rootlessness (see Simone Weil), of keeping options open, and where we are located as a passing place to our consumer desitination of blissful retirement, maybe. Your example of engaging in mission in non western context, bring the other factors into play.
Thanks mate, Jason
Comment by fernando
4.10 am on 23 May 2007
Jason, I’ve slept on yoru answer and am still a little unsure. I was referencing two experiences, one of the mission, the other of the expat experience. I meet a lot of expats who speak of real community and depth of relationship in transitory circumstances. I’m also wondering about community in college and educational contexts, even workplaces.
I”m not suggesting the intution in point 3 is wrong, in fact I think it is right. If we try to maximise rather than satisfice in relationships, there will never be community (just aquaintal superficiality).
Perhaps the time modality is not just about the length of our commitment, but the extent to which we allow the possibility of transition to shape our present, relational decisions?
Comment by Jason
5.44 am on 23 May 2007
Fernando, I think you’re right.
Comment by steven hamilton
11.19 am on 23 May 2007
i see and read so many people seeking to understand the dynamics of community and how to do it..and i think most of it is really healthy, as we battle the spectre of consumerism and unattainable wish-fulfillment perfection in our specific circumstances and place in this world.
thanks for this post jason. something stirred in me as i read the first one:
By-Product: Gathering for and to achieve ‘community’ is a conceit, and illusive, we need a focus other than ‘community, it is byproduct of doing something meaningful together.
Comment by Jason
4.18 pm on 23 May 2007
Steve, that’s the one that resonates with me the most.
Comment by D.G. Hollums
12.35 pm on 23 May 2007
It is funny that when we “pitch” the idea of community to normal people and Christians alike, I use the “desire for community” as the main “selling” point. (which is interestingly in a kind of contrast to #1) I guess, that it plays into the consumerism aspect a little bit, but I tell people that authentic/deep community it not really to be found in the world today…the stuff that our lives are transformed by and our lifestyles are affected… and that is why we call Th3 Waters a social experiment to see if deep community can really form in this world.
And people jump on board. They are interested in the mystery of community, and once they experience it they never desire to leave it. (which makes birthing new Organic Gatherings a challenge, but still worth it, heh)
interesting thoughts Jason, and I wonder if it is not only a large culture thing, but a local sub-culture thing as well.
But I do believe that everyone deep inside them desires for community. and that is exactly what Christ had in mind when he redefined community as family, “Here are my mother and brothers” (Matt 12:49)
And number 3 is a difficult one for me personally, We still must desire to obtain community beyond the current community that we might currently find ourselves in. And if that is the case then how could we birth other communities if there is not choice to leave and start another? Granted this might be taking into account the need to reproduce community, but I think it is something worth discussing.
Comment by Jason
4.21 pm on 23 May 2007
DG thanks. I don’t think 3 means we have to locate community in only one place, we need multiple communities, not monolithic ones. But in terms of primary communities, committment of some sort, and a willingness to to forgoe consumer choice, for involvement are probably key.
I think it’s more is our primary identity that we consume community, and have not closing of choice when we enter them. If our options are always open, have we really entered into community at all? That doesn’t stop the planting of churches, at least not that I can see.
Comment by D.G. Hollums
6.27 pm on 24 May 2007
If community is relationship at its core, then there is always choice if it is true relationship. it is the choice that everyone has to leave…and they choose to stay and be a part of community. that is what makes it deep/authentic/true community. (similar to free will/choice).
I can see the thoughts about planing churches and that was helpful in the discussion. Thanks!
Comment by Paul
7.42 am on 24 May 2007
I’m just in the process of writing a post about church and in my draft have written how the nature of community is one of the most offensive of notions in our western context yet one of of the most attractive.
It is offensive for all those excellent reasons you list Jason – we want to keep choice open, or at least are afraid of not having a choice and we like to fool ourselves into being little island dwellers, cut off from each other. I’d rather not be responsible for anyone but me and can resent those who make my life harder as a result.
It is also deeply attractive, especially as you note working around a common cause – those moments when i am caught up as a team, or a conversation and find something of me shifting from taking to giving, from going to staying, i find myself caught up in the sense of purpose and energised by it.
thank you for your thoughts.
Comment by Jason Clark
7.37 am on 25 May 2007
That resonates with me Paul. I know it’s annecdotal but everyone where I live seems to be passing through, even if they have lived there a long time, they talk about how they wish they lived somewhere else, usually by the sea, away from everyone.
I do think that in the west we have no sense of place, in terms of being connected. The main sense of place we have is on holiday, hence the desire to move and live somewhere like we went on holiday.
In the other comments, there seems to be a thread of doing something together in a location, no matter how short term, to improve a community, leads to real community.
Pingback by peregrinatio » Sinnvolle Gemeinschaft
9.02 am on 24 May 2007
[...] Jason hat einen interessanten Post zum Buch “Utopian Dreams†von Tobias Jones geschrieben. Jones befasst sich mit dem Thema Gemeinschaft, vor dem Hintergrund verschiedener Besuche und den damit verbundenen Erfahrungen. [...]
Comment by Ian
9.02 am on 24 May 2007
I am reading "Exiles" by Alan Hirsch at the moment, and his use of the
word communitas to describe "liminal" communities engaged in outward
effort or struggle towards a greater good, seems to very much resonate with what
you are saying here.
With respect to renouncing choice, maybe it would be better described in terms of mutual commitment to each other, for an agreed period of time. Hirsch describes the experience which many of us might relate to of finding a new level of community on short term mission trips or retreats which is quite different from that found within a church of which we might have been a member for many years (even with the same people). I agree with Fernando that expats working overseas can quickly find themselves operating in community even amidst transition and flux, but I also know from bitter experience that it is often the apparent breaking of mutual commitment when a member leaves that can put a lot of stress on community life. Thus I offer commitment (albeit for a limited period) as a better marker than denial of choice.
Ian
Comment by Jason
9.05 am on 24 May 2007
Thanks Ian, those are helpful developments of the community ideas.
Comment by Paul
9.30 am on 24 May 2007
Hi Ian, i can resonate with your comments on short term mission, when i did one to africa it was an amazing the deep bonds that formed whilst praying, worshipping and serving together. I also found something similar on our church weekend away when it was a real investment for me in getting to know people more and hopefully likewise for them with me.
I think we need such spaces in our communities for deepening our relationships we also need to think about the balance which is times of solitude – recognising that there is an ebb and flow.
I can see how your concept of limited commitment helpful, especially in the examples you mention, but how would you see it in the context of everyday church life? How do you [and others] see limited commitment being anything distinguishable from that with which we practice in every other part of our life – the involved til i get a better offer syndrome?
As a practical example I used to attend a church with a high turn over of people who were moving in or out of the area for job reasons. Everyone was always talking about how the town we were in they wouldn’t be in for ever and one day they’d move. Transition was the norm and escape was applauded. I found that in that limited commitment [til i get a new job, or can afford to move out etc]became a tacit acceptance of our life together [dressed up as holy language too blessing of God with a new job/relocation] and hindered people, including me, in investing in relationships other than of mutual convenience. It was like what’s the point of really sharing anything deep or signifcant because one of us probably won’t be around next yr. Indeed if you got to know people more the one dream that you’d hear them reveal is both their desire to leave and their loniliness because they knew such friendships were temporary.
How would you [and others] see limited commitment working in that context? Does the church need to offer a counter-cultural response where commitment is norm?
thanks very much :)
Comment by Ian
7.08 pm on 24 May 2007
Paul,
If, as your story seems to suggest, everyone would leave as soon as opportunity presented itself, and there was a high degree of uncertainty as to how long relationships would last then clearly commitment (of any sort) did not exist. It is
not surprising that the will-o-the-wisp of community never appeared, but amongst people in such transience I suspect that there were several more items from Jason’s original list which were not present either, so it is perhaps not a fair test case.
I suggested commitment as an alternative to Jason’s renouncing choice
because although community will not generally be built amongst a group that has not made some form of commitment to remain with each other and not to leave, the experience of many has shown that this does not have to be forever, and indeed
might be for a relatively short period. Thus when I suggested that commitment might be limited, I did not mean “committed until I get a better option†but rather that we will be together for a mutually agreed period of time (agreed
either implicitly or explicitly) and that barring unforeseen circumstances this should not change. It thus derives from Jason’s denial of choice in that we have chosen not to explore other options, and to stick with the nascent community
beyond initial problems, but depending on circumstances, this might be for a weekend, a week, or much longer.
This language reminds me of the language of incarnation, in the sense of being intentionally present and available to other members of the community. Jesus knew he was leaving (and certainly this caused some consternation amongst
his disciples) but was it a barrier to community?
I work in a team in Indonesia with 7 nationalities from 4
continents, and we know that in a year or so we are likely to be spread far and wide. Nevertheless we also recognize that we will each have to work hard if we are to find the same depth of fellowship and accountability when we return to our home
countries. Our community relationship, while clearly temporary is built upon the fact that the rest of Jason’s list is largely present.
Ian
Comment by Paul
8.50 am on 28 May 2007
thanks Ian, it’s a very good point you make. I’m struck by some of the language in Acts where it talks about communities releasing the apsostles, particularly Paul so he could go and establish other communities – they discerned the call of God together and then released him with their blessing. I’m not arguing against limiting our commitment, just where there needs to be as you say being present for each other with our time and a commitment to be present rather than a commitment to escape :)
Comment by Jonny
7.13 pm on 24 May 2007
thanks Jason,
very helpful – all very profound. and thingking about it – I’ve been guity of all of these at one point or another.
the whole thing of ‘Need’ is a big issue i think. We don’t need community because of the illusions of security we have in a consumer society – where we can insure ourselves against alsorts of calamities. I guess the sulutions to this are ancient – sharing, hospitality, serving and allowing others to serve you – being vunerable and available.
Comment by Jason Clark
7.39 am on 25 May 2007
Hi Jonny, and we assume others will provide for others needs in a consumer society, be that local government, or some notion of ‘others’. The energy it takes for the consumer self is debilitating for any notion of self in a community context, maybe.
Comment by Tom
8.01 pm on 24 May 2007
This post is so helpful, Jason. Thank you.
As I look over your 8 suggestions, I have seen all of them manifested in an integrated whole at Church of the Savior in Washington, DC. I have to confess that this was the first church that ever startled and surprised me. I was totally caught off guard by who they were and what they were in the process of becoming, even after 50 years. The book that describes the Church of the Savior story is Call to Commitment by Elizabeth 0′ Connor.
Comment by Jason Clark
7.42 am on 25 May 2007
Hi Tom, that’s a great example of a church, and it requires a huge committment to live and be part of that community.
As Ian mentioned above, committment is key, and is I think the dirty word in our culture. Why be committed to anything, any place or anyone.
We can’t sustain beliefes, and a christian way of live without others, committed together, in time and space, yet we think we can so often.
Thanks for taking time to comment.
Comment by Simon Thompson
11.51 pm on 31 May 2007
It is usually at this point that I shake my head and slink out of the back of the church resolving never to join. I am a refugee from the Restoration movement in the 80’s and there is nothing in your list that would not be signed up to happily by them. When I left, I decided that any organisation that existed with a goal other than community would be automatically abusive. Since then I have seen that groups which are inward looking are pretty pointless.
I am not saying that the points are wrong per se, just that they are so broad that they are open to abuse. As someone whose theology has evolved over the years married to someone who has moved from charismatic con-evo to a humanist viewpoint with a vague sense of the spiritual, but no trust of it, the idea that I would sign up exclusively to any group with set rules and beliefs would be a triumph of faith over experience.
Having twice thrown myself into something with full commitment and twice been pressured into conformity by hierarchies that saw my renouncing the right to quit as an effective lever, I really can’t see any combination of hierarcy, rules and shared goals that I would be able to sign up to.
Comment by Jason
8.19 am on 5 Jun 2007
Hi Simon, great to hear from you. Is there any alternative to losing yourself to a group, or living with self as sole authority?
Comment by Simon Thompson
11.50 am on 7 Jun 2007
Good question Jason. I guess there are two foundational points before I answer. Firstly, there are two main meanings to the word authority: one relates to who you obey and the other relates to who is worth listening to. Secondly, ultimately self is always going to be final arbiter unless we return to mediaeval times.
In terms of who you listen to. I certainly value scholarship. The quality of books available is such that church minister’s sermons simply cannot compete. Sermons generally combine simplistic generalisations with a complacent sense of certainty.
I can certainly see that it is possible to belong to a group of fellow travellers, though I have so many friends that have abandoned orthodox faith that I simply cannot see the value of joining (and thereby legitimising) a community that you will have to leave if you change. The renunciation of choice coupled with a community bounded by rules and beliefs really equates to being unable to grow for fear of growing outside the community bounds.
There are some models that I take hope from. I have friends who are not even close to orthodox in belief, but who go to Iona every year. I can also see possibilities in the Liquid Church concept, in Greenbelt and in J.H. Yoder’s Body Politics.
Pingback by Was ist Gemeinschaft? « Tiefebene
11.48 am on 18 Jun 2007
[...] Peter Aschoff stieß ich auf einen Post von Jason Clark, der im Anschluss an ein Buch von Tobias Jones darüber nachdenkt, wie authentische christliche [...]
Pingback by CCN » Blog Archive » Community Dreams
10.08 am on 25 Apr 2008
[...] is a really interesting post by Jason Clarke on Community. The first point grabbed my attention in particular. It was a good reminder that community in and [...]
Comments are now closed.