More on Craig's "covenant community" -- Part II. See part I here.
There were 80 or so of us who committed ourselves to our first covenant in June of ’74 (I was all of 18 years old at the time). By the following fall, there were a few less than 70 of us left, as the demands of community life began to become clearer. At first, the big deal was just that, having made a covenant with each other, our lives weren’t our own, to do with as we pleased; at least, not like they’d been previously. It’s hard, you know – somewhat akin to how marriage is hard – to give others a say in your life, when you’ve never done that, and it’s not exactly how things go in the larger culture. And besides that, loving other people is hard – especially people with whom you live really closely. One of my favorite quotes from my favorite book not-the-Bible (The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a Kempis) says, “. . . to be able to live at peace with hard, obstinate and undisciplined people [ie, people like me]. . . is a great grace.”
In the first years of our new ‘community’ life, it was just an amazing time – everything we touched seemed to prosper. By the early 80s, we had something in the neighborhood of 500 adult members. Not that I’m playing a ‘numbers game’ at all, but things just worked; evangelism was easy. The community life was pretty attractive, especially to college students, and everything we touched seemed to turn to gold. We liked to say that we were ‘the greatest thing God is doing on the face of the earth’. What’s that proverb about ‘pride goeth before a fall’? But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Now, you’d no doubt not be surprised if I told you that the guys who were leading a group like that had some pretty strong egos. At least, a couple of them did. And their ego clashes eventually led to a rupture in the community. And then, the guy who, after all that, was the main head leader-guy, was found to have, uh, certain deficiencies of character. And between those two things, the life of our community was rocked pretty hard. By our 10th anniversary in ’84, we had around 180 members. And from that, we’ve had to rebuild our community life, incorporating the ‘lessons learned’ from our troubles.
One thing we learned – when our community was comprised almost completely of young singles (in ’74, we had five married couples in the community, who had two children between them), there was a certain ‘gung-ho’ intensity that didn’t translate well, once we started marrying each other, and the community transitioned to something more ‘family-based’. The whole ‘intensity’ thing also sometimes happened at the cost of individual members’ taking responsibility for their own lives. ‘Radical self-denial’ could easily morph into a kind of authoritarianism. And so, part of our challenge in rebuilding the life of our community was to foster the same kind of radical discipleship, while respecting the integrity of the would-be disciples, and not crossing over into authoritarianism.
Another thing worth mentioning at this point relates to something that Dietrich Bonhoeffer said in his book, Life Together (which is a great book on the dynamics of Christian community life), to the effect that ‘he who loves his vision of community more than he loves the community, destroys the community’. That is, if we love our vision of community more than we love our actual brothers and sisters, the community will die. Sort of the Christian version of the old bit from the French Revolution about making omelets and breaking eggs. And that is also consistent with our experience of community life.
In the early years of our community, community life was largely ‘household-based’. Groups of singles would share a house together, and have daily patterns of prayer and sharing. Or families would have singles live with them, to live the community life in a family setting. I personally lived in both of those – in a household of 18 single men (sort of analogous in my life to my dad’s military experience), and later, with a family, along with two other single men, and three single women (I’m guessing that might provoke a question or two).
These days, we don’t have so many of the ‘old-style’ households, but we do make an effort at ‘clustering’ – families will buy houses near each other, so that physical proximity can foster close relationships. Right now, my wife and I live in a neighborhood where we’re within a block of about ten community families, and within 4-5 blocks of 6-8 more families. Living close to each other just makes a ‘life together’ a whole lot easier, and more natural.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Lots to comment on, so I'll just start with this..
You went from 500 to 180 in just a couple of years, so whatever the character problems were in leadership, they must have been bad. It's a common discussion here that power and leadership among christians begets ego and personality problems. Do you think this kind of community can exist with less of a power-down heirarchy?
Interesting question, Scott. And yes, they were bad.
Our 'leadership model' is really a 'collegial' one, based on 'naturally emergent' leadership. We have (and had, at the time) a group of 'elders' who exercised leadership of the community as a group. But of course, that didn't keep trouble from happening.
The thing is, 'naturally emergent' leaders tend to be 'strong personalities', charismatic guys (in the 'John Kennedy/Bill Clinton' sense of the word 'charismatic') who can inspire others to follow them by the force and appeal of their own personality. Which, if that guy has strong character, works wonderfully well. But if he doesn't, and turns his 'personality gift' to his own purposes, you get trouble. And that has happened from time to time in communities like ours.
Theoretically, the 'collegiality' of the group of elders should function as a check on that, and it did in our case, eventually - the 'character-deficient' leader was deposed and disciplined. But when your 'main leader-guy' becomes (I should say, 'is allowed to become', but that might imply a more conscious 'allowing' than was really the case) the object of a kind of 'cult of personality', where people come to see themselves as following him moreso than pursuing the Christian life, then disciplining or correcting him becomes a point of crisis for the life of the community.
I'm not sure if I've directly answered your question, or not. I think that, generally speaking, strong leadership is a good thing, but you need some kind of 'checks and balances'. I think that the 'collegial' model of leadership that we operate with can provide that. And, having been burned once, there is more of a sense of what kind of character is demanded of the leaders, and what kind of vigilance the body of elders (and really, the whole community) need to maintain.
Does that make sense?
Actually, Scott, in thinking about it a little more, the ego-clashes between leaders probably were more damaging, from a pure 'numbers' standpoint - people tend to 'choose sides', and the community splits. That is actually a more common thing, in my experience, than one strong, corrupt leader taking the community down with him.
Yeah, when people start choosing sides, everybody turns evil. Truth and grace go into the toilet headfirst.
If you promise to pixelate my face and distort my voice I'd tell stories that would curl your hair.
Ok, I am finding this to be a very interesting topic. But I do have some questions. I have some comnments too but I want to make sure I am really understanding first.
You talk about giving others a say in your life. Can you be more specific? First, were there rules you had to agree to in the community? Who made them? If you were accountable to each other, what happened when someone broke the rules? Who chose the leaders? I know it seems like a lot of questions, I am just trying to really picture what you are saying. Because what you are describing seems to be significantly more than simply “community living”.
You also talk about “clustering” and living close to each other. I can certainly see where that would make “life together” easier and better. My question on this is that doesn’t that then exclude certain socio economic classes (for lack of a better term)? What if I can’t afford to buy the house next door to you? How do you ensure that people who want to be a part of this covenant can? Or do you not? Or has it not been an issue?
I know I’m bouncing around here, but bear with me. You talk about how “loving people is hard”. I know that is true. In almost any environment (church, work, family) there are people we like more than others and probably people we don’t really like at all. At least I know I’m guilty of that. Has this been an issue? How do you resolve it? In the best of situations also there are always going to be people who think they are better than others (and I’m not just talking about leaders here). Are there people within your community who just don’t get along?
Random question: is everyone in the community Catholic? And if not, do the different beliefs or dogma differences ever cause problems?
Ok, on to leadership questions. How are the leaders chosen? What are their roles? Can you maybe just expand a little bit more on the leadership? What keeps it a community and stops it from being “cultish”? I hate using that word, but I hope you understand what I mean. If not, let me know and I’ll try to explain the question better.
Thanks, for sharing your story with us, Craig. I know I have a lot of questions, I just find the idea of what you describe very intriguing.
Joe - I have no doubt that you could. Truth and grace, love. . . all those things leave in a hurry, when there's strife in the body of Christ. I think it was Tertullian who said that the main mark of the Christian people is 'See how they love one another'.
But then, it was Gandhi who said he might believe in our Redeemer, if we looked more redeemed. . .
(*sigh*)Christi - Wow, lots of really good questions. I'll do my best to give them the answers they deserve. . .
When I say, 'giving others a say in your life', I'm really referring to the covenant we made with each other; at the most basic level, that just says that we're gonna live our Christian lives together, and in support of each other, as best we can. So - things like, if I'm considering a job that means I'd have to move away, and end my involvement with the community, that's not just a unilateral thing on my part, because it affects my brothers and sisters with whom I've thrown my life in together (which doesn't, by itself, mean that I would never take such a job, but that my brothers and sisters would have a say in helping me discern if that's what God has for me; does that make sense?) Really, it's more of an attitude, of understanding that, because I've thrown my life in with these folks, my decisions affect them, and so my life isn't *just* my own. . .
We came up with our covenant together. We've actually had, I think, three different covenants, as changes were perceived to be necessary. Some 'leader-types' wrote it up, and then it was sent around for comment. Corrections were suggested, and changes were made accordingly, and then the final version was ratified by the whole community. I think something like a 90% majority was required, for it to be ratified, and the final vote was on the order of 98% or 99%. So, the covenant has the very substantial assent of the community membership.
The covenant isn't so much a matter of 'rules' as it is a set of agreements as to the kind of life we aim to have together. Altho it does include things like, we all agree to spend time in prayer every day, to attend the meetings of the community, and 'mundane' stuff like that, that make up the 'nuts and bolts' of a 'life together'.
As I noted in my previous comment to Scott, our 'leadership' model is a 'naturally emergent' one - leaders tend to 'emerge' from the life of the community. And as they 'emerge', they come to be recognized as the type of men who can lead the community. At some point, the existing leaders propose to the community that so-and-so be provisionally installed as an 'elder' (we actually call them 'co-ordinators', but most folks seem to relate to the biblical term 'elder'), and that is either ratified or rejected by a vote of the community. For a couple years, their service as a leader is 'provisional', as they learn what the job is, and people can experience them acting in a leadership role; during this time, they are subject to periodic 'evaluations', and they could be removed from the leadership. Even once they are 'permanently' installed as an elder, they get periodic evaluations, and their continued service is ratified by the community. I hope I'm not boring you with 'constitutional' details. I only mean to say that, at least on some level, the leaders are chosen by the members of the community, and their continued service is subject to the approval of the membership.
As to 'clustering' - there are several clusters, in various parts of town, that cover a broad range of 'socio-economic' neighborhoods. The one my family lives in is in a pretty 'affordable' urban neighborhood; other folks live in more 'suburban' settings, and there is one cluster that is sort-of experimenting with something like their own little 'ex-urban' village, building houses from the ground up in a near-rural setting.
Not everyone lives in a cluster, and it isn't a requirement. Some folks just place more emphasis on the kind of neighborhood they want to live in, or which school district, etc, and that's their prerogative. But it makes community life more difficult, and less 'intuitive', when you have to drive to everything. Conversely, community life works a lot better when your community brethren are also your neighbors, and their kids are your kids' regular playmates, and you see each other all the time, in the course of your regular daily lives.
This comment is getting really long, but I'll try to go quickly thru your other questions. . .
Yes, there are such things as folks who 'don't get along', whatever form that may take. Of course, in the context of a covenant where we pledge to love one another, that can become a problem. Mainly, it would get dealt with pastorally, with input from the pastoral leaders of the folks involved. They might be corrected for unloving attitudes, and encouraged to love each other beyond their differences. The main thing is that, by signing on to a commitment to love each other, we're committing ourselves to working out our relationship problems. Sometimes, that can be a long and even painful process, but over and over again, it has brought life to folks who've 'gone to the mat' with each other. . .
Our community is 'ecumenical' - we have members from various Christian backgrounds. In point of fact, we're about 70% Catholic, about 15-20% Lutheran, and the rest either Orthodox, or 'free-church' evangelical. But in principle, we'd accept any Christian who could honestly agree to live our life with us. A few years back, I think we added something to our 'articles of membership' referencing the Nicene Creed, at least to the point of agreeing to its content. . .
There is a certain 'sensitivity' required for us to maintain our life together without stepping on each other's doctrinal toes. We're an ecumenical community, not a church; so, we don't do 'sacramental stuff' - we don't marry, bury or baptize; we leave those to our churches. We maintain a sort-of 'Mere Christianity' approach, as regards our life together - we mainly steer clear of points of doctrinal conflict. Catholics, for example, don't talk about Mary in ways that would imply that their hearers agree with everything they're saying. I don't know if that's clear, or not. . .
The 'cultish' question is a very good one. We've been accused of that, in the past (especially around the time of Jonestown. . .) I suppose the main answer I would give to that, is that community membership is completely voluntary - one can join, or leave, as one wishes, and people do. We have a multi-stage process for becoming a member, where someone can sign on for progressive degrees of the community life. No-one is a community member against their will. We don't take anyobody's paycheck, or try to separate them from their parents/families. I don't know if that makes us 'not-a-cult', but those are some of the markers in my mind. . .
Thanks again for all your questions, Christi. I hope I've been able to do them justice. Please don't hesitate to ask for any clarification you need. Or, heck, ask any other questions you might have. . .
Thanks, Craig, for taking the time and having the patience to answer my questions. I'll read over them tonight and let you know if I have any more!
"And as they 'emerge', they come to be recognized as the type of men who can lead the community. At some point, the existing leaders propose to the community that so-and-so be provisionally installed as an 'elder'."This is actually, in theory, not much different from how elders are chosen at most mainline protestant churches I've been a part of it. Yet, as the churches become really large, I sometimes wonder how really "emergent" and organic it is to always have the existing elders choose the future elders. But I don't need to get into that subject here. :-)
In many ways, I still think smaller is better. I realize "leadership" problems can arise anywhere regardless of size. But I can see these problems happening much easier with 500 or 1000 or 1500 people. It's not difficult to really "throw your lives in" with 100 people. Not so easy with 500.
Thus our (stolen) motto: Getting smaller and smaller until we take over the world!
Stolen motto #2:
"Lowering the bar for church...raising the bar for discipleship."
Non-stolen motto:
"Church can handle Sunday. The unChurch has got the rest."
Joe B - I am lovin' the non stolen motto. Good one!
Scott - I agree with you completely. Certainly with a smaller group, leadership problems are not only less likely to develop, but also because of the size of the group, less likely to stay hidden for much time. I would assume there would be much more transparency in a smaller group.
But my question is where/ how do you draw the line? Do you see what I'm saying? Do you say to person X 'oh, i'm sorry, you're #101... no room for you here.'?
Maybe there's some middle ground... like smaller communities within the big community. Hmmm, I don't know the answer - I just ask the questions. :-)
"smaller communities within the big community". . .
That's actually pretty much where we've arrived at. The larger community is broken into smaller 'districts', pretty much for the reasons Scott and Christi cited. It's hard to maintain a perspective of 'close personal brotherly relationships' with 1000 people; 100 or so is a much more 'natural' size.
Currently, we're at about 250 or so adult members, and we're in three 'districts'. The 'goal' is for districts to have on the order of 75-150 people in them (so, when a district passes the 'upper limit', it gets split into two smaller districts). Districts aren't such a big deal with 250 people, but when we were 500, they were pretty important for maintaining a 'human-sized' environment.
This all makes me think how much I enjoy suburban isolation. I kind of like every man for himself.
Dont you have freeloaders in Michigan, or is that only everyplace else?
Eutychus - I'm not sure what you mean by 'freeloaders'. . .
There will always be people whose ability to 'contribute' to the life of the community is greater or lesser. The point is, we're all trying to help each other get to Heaven as best we can. . .
And, just speaking on my own behalf, 'every man for himself' seems a pretty impoverished model of the Church. To say nothing of Heaven. . .
One of the issues that comes up a lot is how busy everyone always is. People just don't have TIME for this kind of "community." This probably hasn't come up yet, but I should point out that Craig and his wife have eight children.
Yeah. Eight.
How on earth have you juggled this kind of community (did you say DAILY prayer together?) with jobs, commuting, soccer practices, homework, shuttling kids to basketball and football and cheerleading and so on and so on?
As a "coordination" type of guy, I find it tough to even get people together once every few weeks. People really pride themselves on their busy-ness!
Now that I think about it, this whole topic has the makings of an entirely separate post...
Well, only five of our kids still live at home. . .
I should clarify that we commit ourselves to daily personal prayer - ie, we commit ourselves to 'go into the closet' individually, every day. As a community, we pray together pretty much weekly, altho there are numerous other contexts - small groups, and the like, where groups of folks will pray together, in the context of something else.
Some of the concerns you raise just become a matter of priorities - you make time to do what's important to you. I don't mean that quite as 'hard-edged' as it might sound, but it's true, on a basic level. If your kids' sports teams are more important to you than Christian community (or vice versa), that'll tend to show up in the choices you make. We haven't had to do it very often, but we don't just take up every activity (good as it might be) that comes along. Sometimes, we've told our kids they couldn't do thus-and-such an activity, because it conflicted with community stuff. And our kids have gotten used to the idea that we can't come to ALL of their games. . .
Which leads to the idea that there are ways to 'do community' even in the context of kids' sports teams, etc. For several years now, when baseball season rolls around, for example, we'll look around for community folks whose kids are the same age as ours, who want to play baseball, and we'll 'ride-share' (if there aren't community folks available, we'll also check with folks from our parish; we don't really mean to be all 'inward focused' on the community). We also try hard to find situations that don't require a lot of 'chaufeuring' - our sons have played for a youth football team that practices a couple blocks from our house, so they could walk to practice; if we had to drive them to practice, we probably wouldn't have done it. There's also a group of community parents who have started their own Cub Scout pack. It really becomes kind-of instinctive, after a while.
But it all flows from our relationships, and a fundamental orientation that our lives are connected to each other. . .
Eerie silence from Larry and Christopher on the subject of this fascinating unChurch of high ecclesiology. Could you actually have no opinion about such things?
As I read back thru the post, Scott, I realize that I mentioned patterns of daily prayer in households - people who actually live under the same roof. So, it's not like you have this huge logistical problem of getting dozens of people to some external place at the same time. Even so, having lived in a household of single men 'back in the day', it could get challenging to just get everybody in the house together for 10-15 minutes of prayer together. Sometimes, it meant that we'd all get out of bed at 5am so we could pray together before the first guy had to leave for work.
It doesn't always work smoothly, but my wife and I try to pray the Daily Office with our kids every day, which is a more 'patterned' version of the same idea. . .
Joe, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'high ecclesiology'. Catholic members of our community tend to think of it sort-of like a religious order, like the Franciscans, or the Jesuits, that has a life of its own 'separate but within' the life of the 'Church in general'. Does that make sense?
I assumed your group would be viewed much like an Order, in that it exists within the formal authority of the church, but in practice is is doing something almost entirely different.
The trailblazers in this respect were the desert monastics with their body-rhetoric of protest silently denouncing the nascent imperial church-of-power. Then came the activist Franciscans whose bare feet mocked the church-of-privilege while they carrying the gospel into the squalid, emerging cities of Europe. Other orders created the universities and evangelized continents. All these movements bucked painfully against the feudal-imperial church. Each swore allegiance, but also created emergent authority structures outside the formal channels, and pursued a divergent agenda.
But what we are really chronicling here is not rebels, but prophets. It is the earliest iteration of parachurch ministry, which continues its humble-yet-glorious history even today.
Not unLike the unChurch. We pretty much let the religious-industrial complex run its mortal course, while we devote ourselves to following Jesus simply, sincerely, and in barefooted humility. The un-Ordo Fratres Minores in the burbs.
The difference is that we have no Rome or Westminster or Wittemburg to swear fealty to, nor to rebel against.
I will not attempt to define "high ecclesiology", but I will characterize it. It is what Catholic, Orthodox and mainline protestant churches have that Low-E (Independent Christian, Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, assorted Pentecostals, and non-denominational) churches do not have. To High-E churches, apostolic succession is a divine right to govern, owned and handed down by the legitimated leaders. Of course you are not surprised, and I hope not offended, when I say that we find that notion of succession scripturally strained at best (and kind of silly in the case of Protestants.)
To Low-E churches, the only succession is the Holy Spirit who fills and endows all the successive generations who call on the name of Jesus, as the flame of faith passes from heart to heart.
Post a Comment