Open Source Community

A Proposal

John Clements

Are You Longing for Involvement With a Fresh, Authentic Expression of Christian Community?

Are you sensing a need to uncover new ways to express Christian community? Are you wanting to discover how to be more authentic in Christian living? To experience a greater depth of worship that flows through all parts of our lives?

I believe that a fresh, new approach to Christian community living can begin to be imagined and lived out by understanding some of the principles of “Open-Source” – a new way of thinking and co-operating that is powering new technologies and resource use, throughout the world – the most prominent example being open-source software – the kind of software that increasingly powers the Internet.

First, some background information about why this may be relevant…

Changing World, Changing Church

The crisis of confidence within western Christianity,[1] that many have suffered during the past few years, revolves to a large extent around the understanding and practice of “church.”

Most church-related activity continues to revolve around a high maintenance, building-centred, regulated approach, with full-time, salaried staff leading the work, aided by volunteers, paid for by donations. Yet evidence suggests that this highly structured approach is increasingly falling short in its effort to consistently engage wider community and society.

Whilst, at one time, the “pulpit ministry” provided the definitive Christian voice and insight, today it is no longer guaranteed the privilege of being a primary influence upon what is a more informed generation than almost any that has gone before, with many Christians regularly drawing knowledge from a whole variety of sources – books, magazines, tv, video, radio, reading guides, Internet, email – in order to succour their faith.

Furthermore, the development of the welfare state has led to the state taking over, in terms of both social responsibility and overbearing bureaucracy enforced by exclusive legislation, the role of caring for many of the most vulnerable and needy of society – a role which the Christian community often looked to fill in times past.[2]

Simultaneously with these social shifts, families have increasingly found themselves isolated by an individualisation of society. Previously supportive structures of local neighbourhood and extended family no longer function for the majority. In related vein, workplaces are increasingly stressful and demanding environments, frequently devoid of either genuine support for personnel or of a culture that encourages employees to expect either joy or purpose to be encountered within their work.

Stop the Merry-Go-Round, I Want to Get Off

When expansive church vision is poured on top of people living daily in stressful, de-humanising environs, the result is widespread weariness. Yet with a church culture that continually reinforces the idea that congregational duty means loyalty to the leadership and their ‘vision’, it is harder than ever for attendant believers to live a balanced, peaceful, joyful, spiritual life.[3] The result is that people, one by one, find reasons to avoid responding to church-centred demands, so wearied with the whole merry-go-round that they are forced to recognise they are now only going through the motions. Whilst those gifted in certain ways and those ‘whose face fits’ – for whatever peculiar reason – get feted from the platform, many, with no lesser qualities, are quietly exiting out the back door, in spirit if not in body; in heart if not (yet) in terms of financial giving.

Alan Jamieson, in his PhD research on this subject,[4] coined these terms: “Displaced Followers, Reflective Exiles, Transitional Explorers and Integrated Wayfarers,” in order to reflect the typical kind of ‘journeys’ toward which church-leavers gravitate. Without going into detail, the point to recognise is that when people leave church they don’t give up on being part of a faith community or on expressing faith – indeed evidence suggests many eventually finding a more fulfilling faith experience than they had formerly experienced within institutional forms of church.

Church, Kingdom, Community

I believe a vital part of responding to the challenges indicated herein is a renewed recognition of church as community. This places “church” back where it needs to be: outside of the building and of the congregational meeting. The essential point to grasp is that the church is no less the church when it is scattered and doing its thing, out there in the world, than when it is gathered in the meeting place.

For many, this is not an easy paradigm shift to absorb, but once it is “seen” it is a blinding glimpse of the obvious. The kingdom of God does not come because people squeeze into a building to hear a sermon; it comes when people, families, communities, societies even, allow the rule of God to transform them, their allegiances, beliefs, values, feelings and behaviours, their worldviews.

Once we accept this paradigm shift concerning the reality of church and kingdom, then congregating – instead of providing primary identity and definition to ‘church’ and being perceived as the source of it’s power and impact – must instead be infused with fresh purpose: upholding the church-at-work, whether at work within home, workplace or community.

Spheres of Worship

The diagram below attempts to portray these three principal spheres in which the church, the Community of God’s people must relate: family, work, community. Each sphere may be understood as more than simply a place of responsibility; I would contend that each is intended by God to be a place of worship.

Paul writes about this in Romans chapter twelve, verses one to three, where he points out that it is the living sacrifice of our lives which represents our “logical temple service” (TAB), relocating the centre of worship away from temples built with human hands to the temple of the Holy Spirit: the body of every believer, as well as the mystical, corporate body of the Messiah.

Thus, each sphere of our lives potentially becomes a place wherein we learn to understand God’s will; a place of reconciliation to his purposes, of working out our salvation, of capturing his heart for that part of his creation which we oversee. It is probably appropriate to even recognise this as a form of evangelism, since it embraces God’s restoration of creation, all the way through from home to workplace and into the wider community – as we share our lives with others, as we seek to proclaim and to serve God’s eternal purpose – the restoration of a fallen, mortal creation through an infusion of eternal life – within each of these spheres of life and worship.

Within this framework, the community aspect of life is freed to take its proper place alongside family and work, fulfilling its role to facilitate our upholding one another within our family and work roles and challenges. Learning to be an authentic Christian community thus means – hopefully more than, but never less than – offering a listening presence to one another as we each face our personal challenges, incorporating into our communal life the dignity and value of family and work, rather than competing against their influence and unavoidable demands.

With this sense of priorities, a “post-modern” Christian community is potentially released from building-centric forms of ‘worship’ to recognise and support the family-centred work, hopes and dreams of its membership.

Workplace Spirituality

In such a scenario, those whose work takes them into significant spheres of responsibility, into which they are seeking to bring God’s kingdom – rather than being perceived as having little role to play within church, because they are busy (“distracted”) by work – are recognised and supported, as people on the frontlines of advancing the kingdom of God through the workplace, whether that be as head of a multi-national, as a home-schooling or fostering parent, as a student, a homemaker, a carer, accountant or businesswoman.

I believe there is good reason to think that there may be a whole generation of frustrated, neglected believers out there, undertaking difficult challenges, making tough decisions, not only in the “health-creation” sectors of medicine, caring and social services, but also within the “wealth-creation” sectors of commerce and industry, in order to bring the kind of human dignity and worth to the workplace that they believe represents God’s will – an advance of his kingdom which, in time, can help to open hearts to the Good News itself.

Such a generation of believers may be only too-ready to take their place within a community willing to recognise and support them in their family and work roles. This may be particularly true for many men, whom, I suspect, frequently feel that the regulated, formal church system has little to offer them, in terms of either an appropriately challenging or satisfying involvement, or of a worthwhile recognition of the challenging involvements with the work they are already doing.[5]

Community-in-Action

Exploring fresh ways to live out authentic Christian community, consistent with the God-ordained priorities of family and work, requires creative spaces to be developed for shared devotional acts – prayer, encouragement, social events, sharing spiritual gifts, stories and encounters – as well as discovering effective ways to mutually further our shared understanding of Christian faith and the challenges to it provided by today’s world – scripture study, specialised teaching events, discussion, sharing resources and so on.

I believe that the principles of “Open Source” suggests a model for being organised [6] that can potentially facilitate this kind of creative and authentic Christian community: a fresh way of “being and doing church,” away from the merry-go-round of buildings and dominant patterns of leadership. A form of community-in-action that genuinely offers a place of belonging and of recognition and which has as it’s bottom line guarantee that individuals, families – people – will not be manipulated, abused or taken advantage of simply because they are part of that community; membership will never be used as an opportunity to squeeze you dry like a lemon. Such a community will surely be a safe haven to which many families and people will want to belong, as well as offering an example to other communities of the transforming power of the gospel.[7]

How can a fresh, liberating community of this kind come into being, particularly when we are speaking about such a thing happening without paid leadership and communal buildings? The answer is: it already exists. It simply has to be recognised and responded to.

What am I talking about? I’m talking about recognising and responding to the Christian community that we are already a part of. Whereas denominational and congregational expressions of church tend to have highly defined edges, the kind of “open source community” I am envisioning has fuzzy edges, offering the potential to continually extend itself through the personal networks with which most of us are already involved.

Open Source Software

My proposal is based upon some of the basic principles of open-source software. During the past two years, I have been involved in an ‘open-source’ project, as an end-user of open-source software (OSS). The adjacent diagram offers a representation, using ‘Drupal,’ the open-source software that I have used, as the template.[8] Drupal is a computer program used to facilitate community-based “portal” websites, which publish potentially large amounts of frequently-changing data, such as news or campaign websites and community ‘blogs.’

The thing to note is the modular approach: each time Drupal software is implemented within a new website, the selection of which modules to install and use is determined by the administrator of that website (e.g. myself). This, in turn, varies what visitors to that particular website will see and experience. In this example, I have added modules called “photos,” “newsletter,” “glossary,” “quotes,” and so on.

But that’s not all. What is particularly unique about OSS is that the code for it is made public, so anyone can become a contributor or a ‘developer.’ Unlike the corporate, campus-based approach of, say, Microsoft or Google, the most successful OSS so far – Linux – was and is developed by a community spread out widely and in contact via the Internet. With nothing to hide and no salaries to pay, anyone could and did join the Linux open source ‘party,’ almost all of whom had other employment, thus Linux was effectively developed by part-time hobbyists. Today, Linux has largely become the worldwide de facto standard software for web servers – the computers that effectively link up and power the Internet.

What motivates OS programmers? The desire to contribute something good, as far as I can tell. The product itself is the motivation; being part of it feels good and brings it’s own reward. Because it’s voluntary, people can join in and join out as their other commitments allow. Drupal, for example, is developed by people from at least as far apart as Holland, California and Israel. The only requirement upon code contributors is that certain key standards need to be adopted in order to make modules work with core program code. Modules are led by those who initiate the project, but whole swathes of people eventually contribute to each one, in terms of testing, providing feedback of ‘bugs,’ suggesting new features, documentation etc. In other words, the community itself is constantly developing the end-product through their involvement in a multitude of different ways.

This offers an important analogy with the way that church or Christian community is organised. Whereas traditionally it has been organised by highly trained and set-apart professionals – “clergy” or “ministers” – aided by unprofessional volunteers [9] – “laity” – there is taking place a quiet revolution, aided by new technologies, which is allowing the “priesthood of all believers” to function in previously unimagined ways; for believers to be found simply getting on with a wide variety of forms of ministry, without any official authorisation or oversight.

With Open Source Software, anyone can take it, package it, add value to it (a manual, support, pre-packaged modules etc) and trade with it, without owing anything financially to the programmers. If you compare this to the powerful patterns, manipulative marketing and financial forces of global capitalism, OSS is really, really weird. But it works; it bucks the system; people ‘buy into’ it with unexpected energy and drive and it produces really excellent software: it makes a real difference.

I actually think this suggests that the Christian community could learn a number of things from OSS communities and the way they work, but the present illustration and information is intended to highlight the structural possibilities it suggests for a way of organising Christian community. A way that is simple, non-hierarchical, low maintenance; capable of development and change, yet settled enough to uphold a variety of people-types; reliant upon shared concerns, much less so upon shared resources.[10]

Open Source Community

What might this look like applied to local Christian community? In this model, the core is the community itself. Belonging to community comes through mutual recognition and shared concerns: community = uniting around what we have in common. It grows over time; people will move in and move out, as their circumstances change and allow. Formal membership is not required; in a real sense, it’s already in place.

Thus, ‘core’ community is ungoverned, unorganised, organic; without formal membership or leadership. Rather than relying upon a creed to suggest a core of shared belief, people can arrive at their own boundaries of belief, whilst community itself is built upon shared values, worked out simply in relationship, fellowship, discussion. There would be no vision statement governing core community goals or activities. If a need arose to respond to some particular controversy, it could be worked on utilising a “bet hamidrash” form of discussion, allowing for strong debate and recognition of consensus, without relying upon censorious conclusions.

A sense of membership [11] could be brought about by informally recognising those who definitely want to be involved with and recognised as part of this ‘open source community,’ but, by not having formal rules for membership, by being open to all, no one would be excluded, including those who retain their membership of formal church.

Projects would be self-governing, organised by initiators, offering membership to all-comers simply through involvement and development through participation, contributions of all kinds being recognised: turning up to an event is a significant aspect of body membership; providing feedback and making suggestions equally so.

No-one need be pressured to join any project and equally, since no-one is a paid leader, when projects are temporarily shelved or cease indefinitely, due to other commitments, there ought to be no disappointment; moreover, others are free to take up the project from where it left off. This open-source approach should hinder projects from becoming self-serving.

How would communication take place in an effort to ensure everyone is as informed as possible about what is happening and when? I think the answer is that it takes place in the ways and methods that are already employed in our social networking.

For some this will mean a considerable reliance upon technological communication – email, Internet – and a website providing a centralised source of information could be a useful tool. But there is no need for this to imply dependence on such methods. Telephone, social calling, chatting at the school gates – all these methods will continue to be relevant. The inner desire to belong will draw people into relationship, provided there is a continual expression of welcome, openness and “inclusivity,” manifested by those involved in the Community.

Reaping the Benefits

Open Source Community offers a number of immediately discernible benefits as a way of being organised. Firstly, it does not rely upon either an employed professional, nor upon a hierarchy. A system which precludes a hierarchy encourages the body to operate directly in relationship with the Head of the body, Jesus. I believe this has the capacity to effect a maturing process upon the body membership, allowing a wide variety of people to contribute their gifts and talents – if only the open-source concept can be properly understood.

Thus, secondly, the project-based way of organising is creativity – not leadership – centred; it allows for freedom of thinking and of speech; an environment in which we can learn to respect and appreciate everyone’s voice and gifts, not only that of an elect leadership; with no paid leadership, there is no drive for leadership to justify its existence (and salary) by being involved in practically everything going on.

The core and module / project-based way of organising can also grow organically at it’s own rate; it is flexible enough to allow a proper balance alongside the family and work ‘spheres of worship.’ Individuals and families can pick and mix what they become involved in, which will change as time passes. Because it is low maintenance, involvement in a community that functions this way is sustainable over time.

Thirdly, a related benefit is openness. I spoke earlier about “a continual expression of welcome, openness and ‘inclusivity’”; I expect this to be a natural by-product of people who, having found themselves, for whatever reasons, ‘disenfranchised’ from formal expressions of church, are grateful and interested to discover an alternative form of Christian community. Furthermore, because membership is open-source, involvement can appeal inter-denominationally; indeed involvement can continue alongside institutional membership for those who feel comfortable with both.

The model above has been described by one observer as a form of “autopoiesis,” which is defined as “a self-maintaining system, organisation, or organism; …a process whereby a system, organisation, or organism produces and replaces its own components and distinguishes itself from its environment.” This captures well the sense of possibility for continual renewal that is offered by the open-source community structure.

Conclusion…

The overall effect of “open-source” philosophy and concept – where it has been applied to software (Linux, Drupal), to encyclopaedic knowledge (Wikipedia), theology (OpenSourceTheology.net), health, journalism, intelligence gathering, copyright (Creative Commons), even elements of government – has been to open minds and hearts to new ways of thinking and working and, in particular, to draw in a wide-ranging community into a corporate, voluntary, co­operative effort. If the same effect could be harnessed in regard to Christian community, it could potentially be revolutionary…

 

Appendix 1 : A Crisis of Confidence

For various reasons and in various ways it appears that western Christian churches and their members are undergoing a crisis. What is the nature of this crisis? I believe it is a crisis of confidence concerning whether our ways of being and of acting out our Christian faith are a sufficient and appropriate response within and toward the world we inhabit.

When I joined the Pentecostal wing of the church, about fifteen years ago, there was buoyant confidence that any such crisis was firmly confined to the “traditional denominations,” which meant, primarily, Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and possibly, Baptists. Later experiences with Charismatics suggested they shared this same confidence regarding ‘spiritual exemption’!

Over the past ten years, however, I sense a number of significant shifts have taken place making these broad brush strokes no longer accurate in communicating the nature of the problem. It’s not that the crisis within traditional denominations has lessened, I don’t think it has particularly – although I do perceive amongst Anglican’s what seems like a healthy disposition of humility in response the crisis as it affects them and their relationship to society – it is rather that the crisis is now also effecting Evangelical’s and, increasingly, Charismatic’s and, “Heaven forbid!”, yes, even Pentecostals!

For example, at one time, Evangelical’s would have been certain that their approach to Scripture made them the clear front-runners as “stalwarts and guardians of Truth.” It now appears that many within that grouping are concerned about the movements capacity to engage other segments of society sympathetically and authentically – ultimately meaningfully. This includes how they relate to other Christian groups which perceive proponents of truth ought to exhibit a healthy relational capacity and to value such above doctrinal nuance, i.e. to promote “love-in-action” above religious dogma.[12] Whereas at one time isolation and disregard in the eyes of society was possibly considered evidence of the “rightness” of evangelicalism, many from that quarter are apparently finding considerable relief in publicly expressing and exploring a whole range of doubts and concerns; whilst the wider movement struggles uncomfortably to come to terms with this phenomena, cracks are increasingly there to be seen.

Furthermore, whereas at one time Pentecostals and Charismatics would mostly have been in no doubt that they represented a vanguard of “the moving of God,” there is increasing evidence of a deepening dissatisfaction that is opening minds within this sector of the church to the realisation that no amount of the “next big thing” – borrowed, like “G12” or “Brownsville Revival” or “Toronto Blessing” from other places and cultures – will be sufficient to open the people and cities and societies and cultures of Great Britain. Rather, that what is required is a wider engagement with society, which allows a more culturally accessible understanding of Christian community and message to emerge.

Hallowed ground

As followers of Christ want to feel we are engaging with God in our lives, thus we seek him where we expect to find him: in the temples of religion. We do this only to discover that, when the feelings of intimacy associated with such hallowed ground have dried up, we are little wiser than ever about how to live, really live, in his Presence. We have more books, magazines, videos, audio tapes, websites and who knows what other media spouting forth the secrets of religious truth to us – more so than any generation before us – yet we instinctively sense they have not made us wiser.

I think it will ever be thus, unless we can rediscover an authentic connection between our faith and our “ordinary” life. The false separation of “sacred and secular” is frequently enhanced by religious engagements, in the wake of which many of us have found ourselves fleeing in search of we are not sure what, hungering for a wider transformation, yet unsure whether it will ever come. Throughout history it has been in answer to such dissatisfaction that pioneering begins to take place. My belief is that it is time to be part of such a seeking, to begin to reform and to pioneer new ways ahead in our search for the kingdom (rule) of God, here amongst our post-modern society and culture.

I believe part of the answer may to be found in a rediscovery of Hebraic worldview, [13] in particular, the relationship between earth and heaven and the place and role of humanity within creation. One such vital element of worldview is the Hebraic understanding of the importance of family, work and community – aspects of life which are, in fact, at the very heart of the Christian faith. Modern, rigid forms of institutional life have seemingly squeezed our patterns of life and interaction into forms it was probably never meant to fit, producing unnatural, unanticipated pressures upon our family life, failing to invigorate and uphold our working lives and atomising our communal life.

 

Appendix 2 : On Being Organised

Imagine a sliding scale:

Most churches are obviously firmly on the organisation end of the scale, requiring staff, building, salaries, a charity number and a good deal of administration and so on. To keep all of that going, you need to do two things: bring in members and justify the expenses. All too easily, a culture develops which, whilst superficially concerned about people, really values those who are “committed” – those contributing to the progress of the institution.

In reaction to the kind of experiences that flow from that scenario, there is an inclination, at least in some of us, to now indulge only in organic activity, with its offer of greater spontaneity, less complexity, little commitment to others and increased space to focus upon our family and work. Yet the tendency is for organic community to be fairly weak; whilst a few inter-personal bonds may be strong, activities of organic community tend to happen only in ad hoc ways. Inevitably, it is mainly independent types that are attracted, further increasing its sporadic, unpredictable nature.

Thus, on the one hand there is the strong matrix of organisation offering shared resources – buildings, worship bands, paid pastors etc. – predictable, high maintenance, painfully slow to change, tending to produce hierarchical cultures lacking genuine intimacy and sometimes even integrity.

On the other hand there is the spontaneity of organic ways of doing things, offering few shared resources, unpredictable, potentially rapid change, deep intimacy, but little stability or capacity for reassurance in times of crisis, being low maintenance but needing to constantly “reinvent the wheel” every time something needs to be done.

I believe the middle way that many of us are looking for is to be found in being organised, without the trapping of either of the extremes and I believe that “Open Source Community” can potentially facilitate this.

 

Appendix 3 : The Longing to Belong and the Institutional Spirit

The longing to belong is innate in us, part of our very nature. Irish philosopher, John O’Donohue writes: [14]

“The hunger to belong is at the heart of our nature. Cut off from others, we atrophy and turn in on ourselves. Mostly, we do not need to make an issue of belonging: when we belong, we take it for granted. Merely to be excluded or to sense rejection hurts. When we become isolated, we are prone to being damaged; our minds lose their flexibility and natural kindness. We become vulnerable to fear and negativity. A sense of belonging, however, suggest warmth, understanding, embrace. The ancient and eternal values of human life – truth, unity, goodness, justice, beauty and love – are all statements of true belonging.

Our hunger to belong is the longing to bridge the gulf that exists between isolation and intimacy. Distance awakens longing; closeness is belonging. Everyone longs for intimacy and dreams of a nest of belonging in which one is embraced, seen and loved. Something within each of us cries out for belonging. We can have all the world has to offer in terms of status, achievement and possession, yet without a true sense of belonging, our lives feel empty and pointless. Like trees put roots deep into the clay, each of us needs the anchor of belonging in order to bend with the storms and continue toward the light.”

As John O’Donohue elicits: the longing to belong is deeply ingrained; yet it is something that is surely only superficially recognised and understood by most of us. This is precisely what makes it something vulnerable and open to abuse.

C.S. Lewis, in his book, ‘Beyond Personality,’ observed the following,

“You know that among human beings, when they get together in a family, or a club, or a trades union, people talk about the ‘spirit’ of that family, or club, or trades union. They talk about its ‘spirit’ because the individual members, when they’re together, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving which they wouldn’t have if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence…”

Similarly, Tom Marshall [15] writes about the corporate or institutional spirit, as a vital-to-understand aspect of society and community:

“A city (or a company or an institution) is created by and lives through, the corporate decisions of men and women, each of whom has a human spirit. When this corporate entity begins to function as such, there eventually comes into being a corporate spirit that embodies the character or personality of the organisation and gives it its individuality and distinctiveness. This corporate spirit or persona becomes a created reality in its own right.”

Marshall goes on to identify key features of the institutional spirit:

“although created by its founders the institution goes on to become independent of them”… “although its character is originally malleable and able to be shaped, the corporate spirit becomes increasingly set in its ways and resistant to change”… “originally created to serve the people, the institution ends up using the people to serve its own ends”… “sooner or later, the institution’s predominant instinct becomes its own survival”

Whether ‘the institution’ be a city, a corporation, a business, an association, political party, club or, indeed, a church, the institution’s influence, sooner or later, demands loyalty, commitment and obedience and, in return, rewards those who serve it well with a share of power and influence.

The institution, thus considered, is “fallen” – corrupted – capable of doing good things, but also of doing, or allowing, evil to take place within it bounds. It has legitimate, even laudable goals, but those goals are perverted over time, taking in sinful and illegitimate goals and out-workings. Occasionally, evil factors become so accepted that they are institutionalised, though this is rare.

More subtle, but more normal, is the institution’s drive to become idolatrous, in that it strives to be the ultimate defining value in people’s lives, the ultimate source of allegiance, to exert authority over them, when, at key moments, it requires its interests to come before family, before personal interests, before health, before God. Institutionalised evil or idolatry, in this way, opens the door to demonisation; nevertheless, “the institution,” like individuals, writes Marshall , “is not to be rejected and not to be abandoned. Firstly, because it is the object of redemption, secondly, because restored and transformed it is required for the service of God in the age to come.”

It is not difficult to see how the “longing to belong” which O’Donohue identifies as being innate to all is easily taken advantage of by institutions and institutional spirits. Our desire to belong sends us open-hearted into the embrace of an institution whose power and character is deeper, more subtle and far more ‘embracing’ than we anticipated…

People are consumed by their employment, families fall apart; cities tempt people into a perversion of life that they would never otherwise consider; political parties demand allegiance at the expense of conscience and leaders are slowly corrupted; churches, intent on growing swiftly or with certain characteristics, subtly confuse allegiance toward God with allegiance towards the institution and believers instinctively sense they are being manipulated… that is the world in which many of us have grown into adulthood and within which we now find ourselves being propelled toward middle age.

Something within may tell us that all is not truly well amidst the process, but the grim insistence of “the institution” is too-easily allowed to reassure our waning conscience, blunting its attempt to alert us to the need for discernment about the nature of the reality with which we are being confronted.

The Nature of “Church” Membership

The ‘longing to belong’ makes a local church institution a place of potential intimacy and acceptance, capable of drawing us in deeply. For long periods it may serve that purpose, while we are undisturbed by its failures, much as we are within a family environment (within reasonable limits). However, whilst the church-as-institution has a legitimate role to play,[16] it should not be confused with the church-as-God’s-community.

Membership of the church-as-God’s-community – the global community defined by allegiance to Jesus Christ – is unlike membership of any other group. It is a spiritual, invisible membership, experienced, understood, determined by faith; its head is Christ, who requires absolute allegiance to himself alone, in all aspects of an individuals life.

Membership of a local church, by contrast, is not particularly different to membership of any other human institution, which can be seen, measured, identified, with specific geographical boundaries, working practices and cultural habits, the head of which is a human individual or group. Membership of any particular ‘church-as-an-institution’ clearly cannot implied by virtue of belonging to ‘church-as-God’s-community’ and the respective allegiances inspired by each should not be confused. People should always be allowed to choose their membership of local church freely, without any hint of manipulation.[17]

Moreover, some people find their membership of the global, invisible church to be more personally defining than that of local church. Such people network and serve with people and groups on an inter-regional level, with levels of engagement no less potent nor any less genuine community. Still others find that their most significant sphere of service is within the ‘secular’ community, the workplace or the family and to be required to be members of a local church institution – with significant implicit requirements for service – is an additional weight that is not appropriate for them. Understanding these differences helps to identify and understand some of the tensions which arise within local church settings when a church institution begins to require a level of commitment which goes beyond the level to which the conscience of an individual informs and directs that person to go.

“Fuzzy edges” is a term some have introduced to interpret the need for recognising that people interact with local church institutions in different ways. Evidence suggests that allowing people to follow their own conscience and creativity ultimately allows people to discover their own gifts, abilities and reliance upon God, aiding the formation of strong, liberated, authentic, Christian community and enabling it to interact and relate in ways richer, deeper and further beyond those facilitated by traditional church expressions.

Indeed, a responsible and strong pastoral leadership will facilitate and encourage the growth of such a vital community. However, a leadership that is failing to inspire a mature community, based upon godly love, affection and a sense of belonging between members, may be tempted to take advantage of the communities sense of loyalty towards God and towards his people as a method of engendering loyalty toward the church-as-an-institution – as Tom Marshall warns.

Unlike work environments, governed by an employment contract, or club or political membership, with clearly defined mission and purpose, church is an environment that is frequently, consciously undefined. Perhaps because it is widely assumed that we all understand what “church” is and does – or, at least, we assume the leadership understands these things – yet, unless the values and strategies and expectations of this or that particular local church institution have been clearly articulated, we are likely to find we have drifted unconsciously into an involvement determined not by our own intentionality, but by the character and influence of the institutional spirit. As long as the clear substance of “what church really is” remains undefined, then our relationship with the institutional aspect of church becomes potentially highly uncomfortable, even undermining.[18]

Within such a scenario, a lack of definition and understanding of the distinction between church-as-institution and church-as-God’s-community easily becomes an asset to the insecure, controlling leader. Those who seek from them, or the group, a clarification of the inevitable question: “Is it possible to retain our belonging to the community, without formal membership?” are usually treated with suspicion, seen a threat and ultimately in danger of being disenfranchised, if they do not respond to the issue being brushed aside. Only a rare leadership is able to stop in its tracks at such a point and recognise its own failings in yielding the church community to the grip of the institutional spirit.

The believer or family which “longs to belong” thus finds itself between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place.’ The temptation is to respond to the cynicism underlying the institutional spirit with criticism and, when that fails, to take harbour in overt or covert cynicism towards the institution. This eventually thrusts the believer out into a graceless spiritual desert.[19] The question is how does one find “life” when one is seeking the heavenly manna of belonging to a real, vital, authentic Christian community, yet finding oneself offered only the institutional food of formal membership, seemingly devoid of vitality?

Community : Our Greatest Potential

“The New St Benedict” [20] is a paper endeavouring to succour twenty-first century believers with advice that it believes St Benedict [21] would give to them:

“The good news is that we are capable of change. Like our fellow humans who encountered Jesus during his life we also can be healed. Our lives can also be transformed. We too can adopt new values. We too can live in new ways. That is why the Christian message is called gospel, which means good news.

This great change, this conversion, is a journey we can take only by deciding to do so… This is a journey that takes a lifetime. Also like all journeys this one is made in company with others. If we attempt to make it alone we will soon run out of food, and at night there will be no one to watch while we sleep. When we fall there will be no one to lift us up. When we become discouraged there will be no one to raise our spirits, and when we become lost there will be no one to point the way. To embark together on this great journey is the whole purpose of intentional Christian community. To have been given the opportunity to make it is the greatest gift anyone can receive.”

This suggests to us that community is not a choice that we can avoid, but rather an inevitable, challenging journey that needs to be undertaken. Our ‘longing to belong’ will refuse to leave us isolated; isolation will only swell our longing until we determine to make the journey along the narrow path that leads to life. The ‘New St Benedict’ continues…

“When we were created we were endowed with enormous potential, of many different kinds. It is God who gives each person this potential, and it is God’s greatest desire that we realize this potential, that we become the persons God has created us to be… One of the greatest potentials we have been given is our capacity to live in community, and it is only by accepting this gift and living it out that we become fully human and fully Christian. But to become a whole person we must choose to live in a community which exists to empower its members, to make them whole.

Such communities must be formed intentionally, for virtually all existing communities are founded on the assumption that human communities can only succeed by placing the community’s needs ahead of its individual members’ needs, and by forcing dissidents to conform. That assumption is based on a certain realism, for communities made up of people acting only in self interest do require constant coercion to keep them from disintegrating into chaos.

But by making conversion and prayer central to your lives you have the capacity to create entirely new kinds of communities… which exist to empower and free their members. That is the kind of community Christ created, and by following Christ without compromise you can do the same.”

‘Benedict’ confirms what O’Donohue intimated: the capacity to live in community is the pathway to becoming fully human, fully Christian. Moreover, a Christian community must exist to empower its membership, to make them whole. Denied this by the institution, which seeks to be served, rather than to empower, our Christianity, our conscience, our humanity is compromised. Benedict suggest Christ instituted a different sort of community, one which our sense of belonging, our “longing to belong” is surely today drawing us forwards.

Finding A Way Forward

Many, probably most, people will continue belonging to the church-as-an-institution, without compromising themselves or their consciences. They will continue to be instruments of renewal and revitalisation whatever path the institution takes. They have the inner liberty to resist ‘enslavement’ to the institutional spirit and are contented with the level of community interaction offered by this arrangement.

Others will continue to feel ‘enslaved’ or, at least, highly compromised, yet find themselves unable to take the risk of leaving behind institutional forms of church. Still others will reject all forms of institutional Christianity altogether.Both these groups will have embraced a deep form of cynicism that will continue to undermine their inner liberty and, ultimately, their humanity.

A few will decide that the call of church-as-a-community is to be pursued in a new way – without the trappings of institution. That it is worth breaking out of comfortable patterns and routines and safe harbours to undertake a journey to discover authentic Christian community, with all of its risks, all of its ups and downs, all of its potential.