Bože!

Thanks to Lyngine for forwarding this rather interesting article from Newsweek to me. Lisa Miller (the article’s author) writes that a recent Pew Forum study shows that 7 percent of Americans worship in small groups in house churches rather than attending larger gatherings/congregational settings.

The article goes on to explore some of the reasons – the era of the mega church is over, one size does not fit all when it comes to worship & spirituality, and the rigid institutionalism of “traditional” denomonations distracts and deterrs the faithful.

What was interesting to me however, from an OC/IC perspective is the analogy between mega-church and micro-church and big brand beer, and micro-breweries. A bit flimsy at first but lets think about the branding ideas, the backround imagery for a moment. When you think micro-brewery, you think small, local producer, you think quality, traditional manufacturing but quirky enough to bend a bit here, and be flexible there.

Hmmm . . . perhaps this is not such a bad analogy aferall. Perhaps this is a decent working image set for an indie community to use to draw up an outreach plan for 2010?

Thanks to Siobhan, we’ve got this rather neat article on indie folk in CO.

“Liberal” churches may be sabotaging themselves by reducing the commitment of their members – so suggests a recent report in New Scientist. The persecution of early Christians may have had a dramatic effect on the spread of Christianity because the sacrifices of martyrs and confessors instilled in others the idea of sincerity: “few would willingly give their life for an ideal they did not believe in”.

Once people believe they are more likely to undertake or endure similar displays of committment. Through a mathematical model, the study suggests that this becomes a “self-reinforcing loop” enabling the belief system to persist over time.

The suggestion is that communities that expect a higher level of committment as displayed through particular behaviour endure and grow whereas those communities which do not eventually dissipate. Comparing liberal Protestant churches and fundamentalist Protestant churches appears to prove the point.

How is this relevant to OC/IC communities?

I dare say that today there might be a few confessors out there, but not too many martyrs. So lets look at the effects of more down to earth forms of “costly sacrifices”.

The study suggests that acts of sacrifice, or self-denial/renunciation by religious leaders has a stronger overall impact on the commitment of others. So, how many of our OC/IC leaders and clergy are regularly participating in the life and community of other churches? From the stand point of a visitor/observer/participant – if my local indie bishop, priest or lay leader is heavily involved in another tradition then this indie thing must not be worth my own personal investment.

This opens the door to the next question, assume our leaders are setting the example, are we doing enough to cultivate, and encourage “membership” through the right of chrismation? That is to say – if our leaders have “sacrificed” the (false) safety net of another church, then are we also encouraging the same within the community as a whole? In short are we actively giving people a reason to give a confident “yes” to the OC/IC way of life, and be willing to whole heartedly throw in their lot with us?

Keeping in mind the above two points, how might the common practice of open communion affect committment to, identification with our OC/IC communities?

Finally, in our history can we point to as an exemplar of commitment to the OC/IC ideal? I can think of a few, such as Varlet and Ofiesh, how about you?

While making my rounds yesterday I fell into this essay “What Do Converts Want?” – written from a conservative Eastern Orthodox position. Reading the essay got me thinking – and asking the question (again) what is it that attracts folks to our OC/IC tradition – that is to say: what do OUR converts want?

Today while making my rounds I found this rather interesting graphic from the Pew Forum detailing the reasons American Christians noted for either changing, or disaffiliating from their denomonation. The listed reasons are interesting – and in some ways surprisingly unexpected. The graphic directly speaks to the question – what do converts want.

It seems to me that if we are to see improved stability and longevity in our communities we ought to be aware of these questions – and some of their answers. What is more, I’m guessing that some of our outreach efforts would benefit from an awareness of, and a sensitivity to the nuances of, some of the reasons for people seeking a new faith community.

I think it is also worth considering these topics because it allows those of us already “in” the community to ask, and reflect on why we are here, what are our core vision and values, and how far are we willing to bend, adjust, or compromise on them in order to accomodate new people in the community.

I’ve learned from hard experience over the years that it is better for everyone if we  bluntly, and unashamedly say, “this is us – this is who we are”, rather than to adapt our language and customs to our faulty perceptions of what the other seeks. When we don’t do this – those committed members in the community feel slighted, or puzzled, and the newcomer is left thinking we are without a spine – and therefore has no respect for the mission and life of the community as a whole.

We cannot be all things to all people – but we can be faithful.

Since dabbling more and more in social media networks like Twitter and Facebook I’ve noticed something emerging in the vocabulary of other Christians online. More and more believers refer to their being a “follower of Jesus” or some variation thereof, avoiding or consciously rejecting the more typical “Christian”. I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that this was a product of the Emergent movement, thought it was rather neat and left it at that. Until, I read this post at FaithLab that suggests that it is a conscious decision rejecting the baggage laden “Christian”.

The post goes on to raise some interesting questions: “No doubt, the term “Christian” has baggage. Does it mean a hard-nosed, judgemental, Bible-literalist churchgoer? Or can it also label a humble, quiet, spiritually active follower? What about believers who are not church-goers? Christianity has always had a tremendous diversity of expression. But in our media-saturated world, unfortunately it seems that terms are given meaning by one particular group or approach. How do we define ourselves when we don’t fit that stereotype?”

I confess that since becoming more aware of how religion – and especially Christianity – is portrayed in various media sources, I’ve become more aware of some of this “baggage”. I’ve always approached this awareness through my personal conduct as a believer, a theologian, and a cleric – recalling the line in the morning prayer that says, may I not be the cause of embarrassment to the faith. But, is the praxis of a single individual enough? Krista Tippet talks movingly about the scope of our ability to transform the world in the latter half of her book Speaking of Faith, and says that all we can hope to accomplish is that one to one, individual activity that expresses the core of our belief and tradition.

Over the past decade or so I’ve heard many thoughtful arguments within our own OC/IC community about dropping or changing the labels we use to describe or refer to ourselves. The one that usually gets the axe is “catholic” largely because of its association with the Roman Catholic church (which we are not). Another – interestingly enough – is “church”; this term is laden with associations of institutionalisation, buildings, politics, and hierarchy.

Should we consider changing our terms? What benefit is there in doing so? Should we not instead strive to re-claim the true meaning of the existing language, or is that a lost cause?

There has been a small flood of articles on “conversion” in today’s religious news round-up. The two that caught my eye are a BBC report (here) on the Church of England’s consideration of a motion re-emphasising its explicit aim of converting people to Christianity; and Andrew Brown’s post (here on Guardian CIFBelief) reflecting on “evangelisation” in relation to the CofE motion. In his post Brown makes a rather thought-provoking observation:

In practice, though, conversion is hardly ever about intellectual conviction, whether it is to or away from Christianity, though it does seem to be more often intellectual when it is to atheism. But it is overwhelmingly about joining a tribe or a people and about shifting affections and allegiances rather than ideas. Conversion to Christianity or to Islam results when people find a tribe or a family they want to belong to; and it is worth noticing that the kinds of religions that concentrate most on conversion also simplify their doctrines as much as possible.

I love this quote, from an Imam interviewed for the BBC piece: “Any religion that believes it’s going to bring tangible benefits – peace, satisfaction and understanding in this life and the next – would like to share that.” Yes absolutely.

What I find curious though is that in our OC/IC context you don’t often see a discussion of outreach outside of the internal conversation of the local community – why? Could it be that all pervasive sense of isolation many congregations and projects feel? Maybe it is grounded in the thick layers of mistrust that have accumulated within the movement over the past few decades? Perhaps it is because so many of our “members” are ashamed or embarrassed about their links to the movement – “let’s just keep this quiet, amongst ourselves shall we”?

Let me throw open the door here and ask – what does your local community do to introduce people to the idea of OC/IC community? What challenges have you encountered? What did you do to overcome them (or better – which ones would you like some ideas on)?

Stability within our communities is and has always been a challenge, created in part by small group dynamics. The vast majority of OC/IC projects have 20 people or less. This means that unless a higher proportion of the assembly is “committed” to the project – any minor fluctuation in say membership or even attendance can be demoralising. Congregations in the Big Tent Churches average between 75 and 50 members (there are notable exceptions) which means that a smaller proportion of their membership needs to get their hands dirty for the whole project to maintain a stable momentum, and not experience negative effects caused by fluctuations in membership and attendance.

How do we overcome this challenge of group dynamics? One answer is to grow the community. However, large communities are not the norm within our tradition – and most of us like it that way. We’ve been discussing (here) ideas of identity over the past few weeks, and I think that there is a connection between stability in our movement and what we see as the defining marks of our identity (perhaps the topic of another post).

If a higher proportion of members and participants strongly identify with the OC/IC “brand” (both locally, and on the wider stage) then it seems there is a real possibility of a project surviving and thriving in the face of the challenges presented by fluctuations in attendance and membership. If on the other hand a higher proportion of members and participants are actually incomers (this community is merely convenient) the result can create real challenges for the project and it might not successfully adapt.

My community in DC (which had 15 regulars and an odd handful of intermittent attendees) literally died when I went to study in the UK for 5 months. I thought everything was in place for them to carry on as usual without me – they had a deacon, a priest was only 15 min away if they needed him, they had access to the worship space, and they knew what to do. I even thought that my absence would encourage them to explore new directions and fresh ideas. The community was unable to adapt to a brief, planned absence, of one member, and fell apart.

Take this problem in a different direction. How often do members (not participants or incomers) move away and begin a project in a new place? In my experience, unless they are in orders, never; and it is rare even when they are in orders. Why is this the case? Is it because our bishops and synods are unable or unwilling to support such projects? Do we not encourage them enough? One of my working theories has to do with the sense of isolation OC/IC clergy and communities “feel” living in our tradition – but that will have to wait for another post.

It would be helpful, for all of us, if we were to collaborate and explore ways that we – together can cultivate stability in our movement. The challenge of small group dynamics currently, un-necessarily “clips” any momentum a community or synod might develop.

Any ideas?

Making my morning rounds recently I’ve been struck by the number of essays, news items, and “other” that in one way or another touch on the idea of why religion matters to us, to the world around us. This morning, for example I read a discussion guide of Krista Tippet’s book Speaking of Faith: Why Religion Matters – and How to Talk About It. Not long ago in the Guardian’s belief section, one writers commented on how contemporary Christianity has lost its sense of purpose. The Pew Forum’s site on Religion and Public Life too – often touches on why religion matters – not only to its adherents, but also to the “Public Square”.

I have been asked on more than one occasion recently to answer the question – why does religion matter – or more spcifically, why does the church, “this church” matter? What does it “do”?

Having thought about it off and on over the past weeks and months – I am struck by one thing. Unlike most other traditions, whose adherants often have a particular style of answer: a vocabulary, a turn of phrase, a particular point of reference, as an OC/IC beleiver I find it is more challenging to answer the question.

How do you talk about your experience of faith, and the value of life in our community? What vocabulary do you find yourself using that you’ve also noticed other OC/IC folk using? What has been your experience of other people’s reactions to your sharing your religious experiences – discovering that it is completely out of the expected collection of traditions and denomonations?

Lyngine posted an interesting comment today which not only deserves to be highlighted but which has inspired in me at least 4 additional post topics (way to go Lyngine!). In her comment Lyngine points to a very important issue in our communities – using a clear sense of identity as a valued resource.

We have a history of refusing to define who we are, and to proudly, confidently present that vision and value set to all (and to even remind ourselves of it when needed). There are a few reasons for this but I’ll only mention three that I’ve seen repeatedly over the past 15 or so years in ministry. Many incomers (non-converts who participate) are uncomfortable making a clear distinction, a fresh break from their “Home Church”; another is that some incomers, wounded by their “Home Church” perceive anything that might create a solid identity as authoritarian, and unwelcoming. Finally, there is a very real problem of commitment and accountability that is intimately tied into the problem of forging and shaping that sense of identity. Many incomers arrive not necessarily out of a conviction that this community is the right one for me, but more out of a sense of I will get what I want, so I can do as I please because they don’t have any quality control, no “institutionalism” like my Home Church does.

The result is that many communities in the movement either don’t establish a clear, communicated (and communicable) “this is us, this is who we are”; or they cannibalise from the collections of the dominant “Home Church” with no intention of it being anything other than a show-piece. Both scenarios undermine the community’s cohesion, and are detrimental to long-term morale. Result – as we all know too well, few OC/IC communities last more than 5 years, before dissolving into a chaotic array of competing visions and value sets.

The caveat here is that you can’t draw up an identity over-night. It takes time – it took my community over 10 years, and indeed there were consequences when we finally arrived at some decisions – but what remains is “the community” those who are not just incomers but real members, people who are totally invested in the life and vision of the community.

You may have noticed that the “About” page in the menu bar is, well, blank. In part this is due to my being occupied with other things of late, but it is also blank because I’m finding that it is a more challenging question to answer than I had expected.

What can be said about the expression of our OC/IC tradition as found in this small community? How do we see ourselves situation in relation to the wider movement? What, if any contribution to the development of our tradition are we striving to make?

You would think – having been around for almost 20 years that answering this seemingly simple question would be . . . well simple. Fifteen years ago I think, in hindsight, it would have been easy for me to produce a list, a page of bullet pointed talking points summarising what we are about. Today, however, I like to think that I’m a bit more thoughtful, and through the practice of, and adherence to our OC/IC tradition, I have come to appreciate the complexity of our sacramental Christianity. The faith we practice, in the tradition we adhere to, is not simple – it cannot be reduced to a black and white list of propositions and declarations; it demands a better answer, one that respects not only our contemporary expression of the OC/IC heritage, but which also respects the intelligence of the reader.

So, rather than attempt a one page summary, or a “Mission Statement” or some other redacted, over simplified bit of management-speak we’ll be developing a collection of essays dealing with subjects that we think, make us who we are as a community. They will not be produced in any particular order. Each one will be posted here – in the main blog – to encourage you, readers in the wider OC/IC community to share your own answer to that particular subject. Hopefully it will prove to be a means of cultivating conversations among those of us in the movement – as we share our own reflections and stories.