Comment by James C Schultz on 9th mo. 25, 2013 at 4:53pm

it sounds like for a few months at least you led a "mission"  I don't think we disagree at all.  We are just talking about different things.  I don't believe God ever abandons those who seek after the truth no matter what group they are in.  However, that doesn't necessarily means the group is operating with his intentional Blessing so much as his permissable Blessing.

I have been active in Churches and small groups since 1973.  I have seen those churches and groups prosper under a divine anointing and even continue when that anointing appeared, at least to me, to have been withdrawn.  The church or group still did good things and people still benefitted from belonging but the body itself slowly decreased in fervor and numbers.  I was born a Roman Catholic - there's a church with a mixed heritage.  When it is good it can be very very good but when it is bad it is Horrid and you can made a case that unfortunately it's horrid days outweigh it's good days.  However, great spiritual giants have called it home, and I don't mean Peter.:)

More to the point, I can drive my Ford Expedition to meeting and get there safe and sound at probably 8 mpg or I can drive my wife's Hundai to meeting and get there safe and sound at close to 38 mpg.  Which do you think most people are going to use, all other things being equal?

I believe that some very basic tenets of our Society have a lot to offer seekers after truth.  I am perfectly happy with my meeting's size, small though it is.  But there is a possibility that our meeting houses will become Histororical landmarks and our Testimonies notes in History Books; and that is fine if that is what happens.  People will continue to travel along their spiritual journeys with or without the Society of Friends.  But there is wisdom in the Society that can help many more people than it presently does; and it has credibility that can be used to help many more people than it does; and it has assets that can be used to help many more people than it does.  Are these things to be left to rot as pieces of historical significance or like good stewards should we strive to make the best use of them for our neighbors on planet earth?  As someone who believes I will see my God face to face I want to hear that I have been a good and faithful servant.  For those who believe in some other outcome I would think they would want to leave this place as much improved as possible by reason of their stay here, if for no other reason than they might have to come back to start all over again.:)

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 25, 2013 at 5:32pm

Actually, I don't think we know enough about the group Forest is citing as a case in point to discuss the dynamics involved in a meaningful way.

James appears to advocate a high degree of intentionality in a meeting's modus operandi as an important (perhaps crucial?) ingredient in its viability.  Of course, there would be other important ingredients too, but he is highlighting the "tripod three", which are often lacking in Friends meetings.

Forest, on the other hand, is suggesting that the tripod is not a necessary part of a successful meeting's viability.  As I read him, Forest has even suggested that the tripod model might not even be possible for some or many meetings to implement.

There are many factors that could enter into a meeting's ability to grow and prosper.  The environment in which a meeting exists surely has much to do with its success (however we define "success"), regardless of its own internal dynamics.

Nancy Ammerman is a sociologist and a student of Christian congregations.  Some time ago, she edited a volume of case studies of local churches and their dynamics: Congregation and Community, Rutgers U Press, 1996.                                                                http://www.amazon.com/Congregation-Community-Nancy-Ammerman/dp/0813....

One of the case studies was of the Gray Friends Meeting in Indiana, a programmed meeting north of Indianapolis.

Another similar volume, by anthropologists, is Diversities of Gifts: Field Studies in Southern Religion: U of Illinois, 1988. http://www.amazon.com/Diversities-Gifts-Southern-Religion-Folklore/...

It also includes a case study of a programmed meeting.  Both volumes are eye-openers, especially the two studies of local Friends meetings.

Wouldn't it be great if case studies of local unprogrammed meetings could be undertaken by competent social scientists?  With a group of such studies in hand, we could address the tripod model and related issues in a more meaningful way.

 

 

 

Comment by James C Schultz on 9th mo. 25, 2013 at 6:04pm

Bill, maybe you can share what those studies showed in a separate blog.  I'd be interested.  My meeting did a discussion group on Diana Butler Bass's Christianity after Religion.  I'd be happy to share her findings in any blog you present.

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 25, 2013 at 7:22pm

Hello, James!

It's been a while since I read those case studies.  I would need to reread them before I could summarize them.  I might try to do so, but it will be some time before I can get to it.  I will put it on my "to0 do" list.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 26, 2013 at 1:32am

Sociologists? How about MBAs? You two keep talking as if a church was something human beings made, something best designed by experts!

When I was at Pendle Hill I was surrounded by devout and dedicated people; the atmosphere was utterly spiritually nurturing and nourishing; and I loved it. (But neither me, the others, nor the place were perfect -- nor was it gathering any sort of movement I could see, certainly not by any particular dogma... aside from: 'Everyone talk in your own religious terms, but try to understand what the others are meaning by them.' A good rule, but hardly an explicit way to distinguish us-here from them-there. )

I returned to people as we usually are -- unusually good people, as it happens. They don't seem to know whether they have a spirit to nurture, and certainly would be embarrassed if it ever got loose. Most of them do their share of Saving The World In Their Spare Time -- except for me, of course. Probably it's good exercise.

I was thinking tonight; you guys should read about Gideon again, how he sends most of his army home. My atheist father told me the story -- about the choice between men who drank with their faces in the water, and those alertly watching while they scooped it up in their hands -- as if Gideon had kept the seasoned veterans. Nope, he won his battle using the rejects.

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 26, 2013 at 9:59am

Forest wrote: "Sociologists? How about MBAs? You two keep talking as if a church was something human beings made, something best designed by experts!"

Interesting comment, Forest!  I won't even try to defend the proposition that a church is an all too human organization; that should be obvious!  We hope that churches are, in their better moments, more than that.  However, they never transcend the fact that they are human organizations!

Neither James (I trust) nor I would advocate having experts "design" a church.  However, understanding churches is another matter.   Sociologists, anthropologists and historians can, at their best, make an enormous contribution to our understanding of the Quaker movement, its dynamics and its problems.  For example, see J. William Frost, "Friends   General Conference, July 2000, "Three 20th-Century Revolutions: Liberal   Theology, Sexual Moralities, Peace Testimonies".

Even a non-professional analyst like Chuck Fager sometimes offers insights that nearly knock me off of my feet!  See his journal Quaker Theology.

I hope you will take a look at the two case studies of programmed meetings, to see how social science can deepen our insight into "the Quaker project".

In my experience liberal (and Conservative) Friends tend to be very interested in bringing the social sciences to bear on their efforts to address social problems.  However, when theologians and social scientists focus their "spotlights" on the Quaker phenomenon, Friends tend to be surprised and confused by this turn of events.

I don't really see how Gideon's story bears on our current discussion!?

Comment by James C Schultz on 9th mo. 26, 2013 at 2:12pm

Personally I believe great churches flow from great moves of God and I have no idea why he decides it's time for a new spiritual revival other than the possibility he doesn't appreciate having obituaries written about him by Time Magazine.  It's trying to figure out where man goes wrong in keeping the fire burning that I have attempted to address and I apologize if that hasn't been made clear.  If I wanted to design a new church I would just start from scratch.

But Gideon is a great example of how great moves of God are tempted go astray.  In

Jdg 7:2 we read:

  And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.

It wasn't a question of veterans vs. rookies, it was a question of man taking the credit for something God was going to do.  Man is always taking over something God starts and running it into the ground.  It's not my job to convince anyone that a living fruitbearing meeting needs an identity, must be a community and should have a mission.  I just shared what I thought the Spirit revealed to me.  I have no stake in whether my fellow quakers accept or reject that message.  It's either from the Spirit or it's not.  I did my job.  Now it's up to those who have ears to hear.

 

Comment by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 26, 2013 at 3:27pm

I expect God does a new spiritual revival when people are ripe. I get impatient and try to give it a push when/where people aren't ripe and nothing happens. Sunlight, water, time...

I think we got our mission pretty early on from Jesus: roughly paraphrased: "Those people are you, take care of them as if you knew that." That hasn't been a popular mission at all. "Community" then would not be "us good people in our nice pretty meeting house" but the lot of us, including people who might not "make good members of our Meeting", might not fit the identity we'd like to belong to...

?

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 28, 2013 at 5:31pm

Hello, James!

It would help to you could illustrate how the "tripod model" works by using it to analyze your own Manhasset Meeting.  I would also like to hear more about your meeting's history.

Bill Rushby

Comment by Bill Samuel on 10th mo. 12, 2013 at 8:39pm

Recently read Hugh Halter and Matt Smay's The Tangible Kingdom, and he talks about communion, community and mission as the primary spheres of incarnational community. Close to what you are saying, but I think theirs is better. Identity should be a combination of the three. Here's how they describe the three:

Communion represents "oneness" - those things that make up our communal connection and worship of God. Community represents aspects of "togetherness" - those things we share as we form our lives together. And mission represents "otherness" - the aspects of our life together that focus on people outside the community.

They go on to say:

"We believe that whenever you see a group of people who find a rhythm or balance among communion, community, and mission, you will always find the Kingdom. It will be tangible!"

Their descriptions leave a lot of room for how that will work out in any particular faith community. You may have gotten too narrow on mission because of  weaknesses you've seen in meetings around this when it is delegated; I don't know. Halter and Smay's point is that the Kingdom should be tangible. The "church" should be a tangible expression of the Kingdom that can be recognized as such. Many meetings, like many other churches, are not there. They may have part of it in place to some extent, but it is not a coherent whole.

These things should be identifiable and members should know what they are. But I do think we need to be careful they are Spirit-led and not just move into something that is part of what you call the "tripod" just to have something. As part of a new Friends community, we (Friends of Jesus - Metro DC Area) are wrestling with being short on the mission component but feel that we must let it develop organically, but we need to keep a sense of awareness that this is a vital part if we are to grown into a church which is whole.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page