The Glass Darkly

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Shedding Exoskeletons

Leon's comments on my last post got me thinking about the structures of the church and how they help or hinder the growth of the Church. I decided to post my response here since I added a lot more thoughts to my original post:

Leon, thank you for your comments -- actually not an unexpected argument to my thoughts. As I mentioned, on one hand, I have used your same argument to myself for many years. And while love is certainly important to me, these thoughts were not birthed out of some form of nostalgia for the good ol' days of love, love, love.

I've been mulling this over and over in my mind for some time now - actually since you posted your comment - and I've been trying to organize my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure I've gotten a firm handle on them yet, but I submit a few more ideas. Conrad Kanagy's message on Sunday and Brian's recent thoughts have contributed some vocabulary I've been seeking.

First, however, I wish to briefly comment on your metaphors (acknowledging the limitations of metaphors). There is something interesting about your second set of metaphors . . . something I want to think about more. Your first set are the structures which hold us up from within -- endoskeletons if you will. Then you mention some which are held together by an external framework (ie river bank, coffee mug). Biologically speaking, endoskeletons and exoskeletons function in very different ways. I could draw all kinds of parallels to the types of internal and external structures that promote or signal healthy growth and support in the Church. But there are certainly negative parallels too.

As you have said, structure and order has its place, however, I think what I am questioning more is to what end is that structure and order aimed? If it is to meet our own needs or for our own personal comfort, I am wary. I have learned to be very suspicious of myself when I start to feel comfortable. First of all I start doing and thinking in ways which inadvertently attempt to preserve that comfort -- comfort is a tremendous form of positive reinforcement.

Comfort is not a bad thing when we are talking about a child in need of security, but when it comes to being bearers of the Gospel, Jesus taught and preached just the opposite. There is nothing safe or comfortable about living without a home ("if they do not accept you, just wipe the dust from your shoes and move on" Lk 10), without a family ("who is my mother?" Matt. 12:48)

There is something appropriately descriptive about the term "resident aliens." What did Jesus mean when he said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it again in 3 days? What does it mean that the Temple was no longer this permanent fixture and place? What does it mean that the Church is to be organic, not bricks and mortar? Conrad mentioned our reluctance as middle-class Christians to be mobile. I am not totally opposed to structure (I love getting groups to organize themselves and develop vision and teamwork, etc.!) but I can't help but ask the question, "to what end is the structure?"

So we look at Life Groups, for example - what is our missional purpose in them? What are the guiding questions framing our church building project? As often happens, David Shenk's voice echoes in my ears from his sharing at our church's 75th anniversary, "what an opportunity we have here at Sunnyside -- so close to the city and housing projects!" And I think, is there a Life Group located in the city? Am I actively inviting my neighbors? Why do I pass three other Mennonite churches on my way to Sunnyside every Sunday?

Part of my role on some Sundays is to prepare sections of the worship service. My preparation is very meaningful for me, but I often worry about whether the structure will be acceptable or comfortable for everyone. I worry that people will go home "getting" what they expected or wanted from the service. We prepare and form structure for decency and order, but to what end? Comfortable worship? Equipping of the Body for missional life? -- yes. But I can't help but ask further questions. Somehow deep inside I'm feeling guilty or convicted. Not sure exactly about what. But there is something deeply disturbing about what Conrad shared -- we are so entrenched in the middle, we don't know how to be Church to the margins.

Do our structures contribute or support this dynamic? And what type of structures are they? Endoskeletons support growth that occurs around them. Exoskeletons crack and break apart when growth wants to happen. So I guess I'm wondering are there exoskeletons that need to be shed so that growth can occur or emerge in the Church?

posted by Gecko Girl at 4:24 PM

3 Comments:

  • As you have said, structure and order has its place, however, I think what I am questioning more is to what end is that structure and order aimed? If it is to meet our own needs or for our own personal comfort, I am wary. I have learned to be very suspicious of myself when I start to feel comfortable.

    I couldn’t agree more! Using structure for “selfish” purposes is a way in which the structure begins to suck the life out of the very purpose they were meant to serve.


    So we look at Life Groups, for example - what is our missional purpose in them? What are the guiding questions framing our church building project? As often happens, David Shenk's voice echoes in my ears from his sharing at our church's 75th anniversary, "what an opportunity we have here at Sunnyside -- so close to the city and housing projects!" And I think, is there a Life Group located in the city? Am I actively inviting my neighbors?

    This is one area in particular that I tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to change as a pastor. Small groups were constantly pushing for more togetherness and intimacy and less reaching out to include the stranger. I remember suggesting that each small group could leave an empty space in the circle and pray for God to fill it from week to week. While a balance is needed, it feels to me that we are far too reluctant to change and in cases like this we can hold the structures “hostage” to our comfort levels instead of God’s purposes.

    Part of my role on some Sundays is to prepare sections of the worship service. My preparation is very meaningful for me, but I often worry about whether the structure will be acceptable or comfortable for everyone. I worry that people will go home "getting" what they expected or wanted from the service. We prepare and form structure for decency and order, but to what end? Comfortable worship?

    Dawn this is precisely the problem. We have gotten used to the idea of “what can I get out of church” as opposed to what is it that God wishes to accomplish. In our self-centered society, I am not sure it is possible, without great effort, to think otherwise or to free ourselves from the bondage of self-oriented structures. In this way good structures can be captive to our desires rather than God’s desires.

    Finally a comment to exo-endo skeletons. Like you said, metaphors work great as far as they go, but all have their limitations. I thought about the exso skeleton breaking apart and allowing for greater growth etc. That makes perfect sense. But it seems far easier for us to think about change and growth in that way than any other way. Let me frame the question in another way. Have the values of our society --to do away with the “outdated and old” and bring in the new—shaped how we view change to such a degree that we lose the concept of transformative change from within? Even good growth can be viewed from the perspective of change that” I like” or that makes me comfortable. So it becomes easy for us to value what is new and difficult for us to reach to the past and learn from the depth of transformative inward change that can redeem ancient structures.

    Just thinking out loud.

    Leon

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:43 AM, October 29, 2007  

  • Sorry in the previous post all your comments were in italics. That did not come through so it might be a bit confusing to read.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:45 AM, October 29, 2007  

  • "So it becomes easy for us to value what is new and difficult for us to reach to the past and learn from the depth of transformative inward change that can redeem ancient structures."

    I'll have to think more about what you are trying to say in this comment. And maybe I will go off on a line of thinking you were not intending . . . but I can't help but recall the rumblings in my past church experiences about "pouring new wine into old wineskins" while at the same time I recognize and hold deep respect for the value of time-honored traditions.

    Actually I have thought long and hard about the ways in which redeeming ancient traditions may be important to the stability of the Church. Including structures as part of that tradition is probably an important aspect. I have been very open to this perspective, however, I have not fully been able to reconcile that need/expectation with the reality I see in the global Church.

    I see that the Church is founded and centered on Jesus from which there are many cultural expressions. No matter how hard I try to see it differently, I cannot fully understand how one can embrace the cultural diversity of the Church and at the same time say we need to return to the ancient practices and traditions which, the more I analyze it, were culturally based and contextualized. I've tried to think through which practices and structures transcend culture, but I am still unsure of even that analytical approach.

    To me it is not fair to say that one people-group, even though closest to Christ and the apostles, provided the full and most accurate expression of the Church. To me, the redemption of the Church and all of Creation was made possible through the death and resurrection of Christ. It started then! It is a process that has been and is on-going since that time.

    And, unlike Ira mentioned on Sunday, I do not believe the redemption or reconciliation is "yet to come," but rather is going on right now. The Church IS becoming. The Church is a being. The Church IS the Bride of Christ. When I hear criticisms of how the Church is broken or fallen from its ancient roots, I feel we are denying the power of transformation . . . maybe not transformation BACK, but rather a transformation from WITHIN. Does God think linear as we do? BACK or FUTURE? I think God's transformation is something from within. If we measure Church health in terms of where we are on a linear timeline, we are missing the picture God sees. Time is irrelevant to God, I believe.

    I say all this when I also believe that the Church in America does need a prophetic voice. It has lost sight of God's vision for it. I do not think that the Church is broken, but perhaps it would be better to say, has lost it's first love . . . maybe I could say has run for the love of money or comforts rather than Christ. BUT Christ is still the Cornerstone, and so I have hope!

    So ANCIENT/FUTURE conversation are helpful because it is a way to help humans think beyond themselves and their own time and place in history. But ultimately any tradition or structure we impose on our spiritual practice needs to point toward Christ and the purposes of the Church on this Earth. I am leaning toward saying that any structure which stands in the way of radical discipleship and sharing of the Gospel to people of particular language and culture groups and particular times and places, might just be an exoskeleton which might need to be shed so that growth can occur.

    Not sure if that makes any sense.

    By Blogger Gecko Girl, at 8:49 PM, October 31, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home