Last night we had a great discussion about what it means to be a community of faith and what some of our challenges might be. This week I’d like to use this website as a way to anchor that ongoing discussion.
This will be the only major post this week. I’ll add a few brief quotes and links over the next few days that hopefully with stir the pot a bit, but for the most part this is the critical discussion we need to have in depth.
Last night I suggested that community life together is where discipleship actually occurs most powerfully. I would add that it’s only in our community relationships with one another that we encounter biblical “salvation.” If you want to dig in a little right now, here are some key biblical narratives for gaining a vision of how the people of God are to live out salvation concretely in community:
- Exodus 16
- Matthew 7:1-12
- Matthew 28: 16-20
- John 6
- Acts 1-2
- Romans 12
- Ephesians 4
- 2 Cor 8:1-15
And here are two recent articles in which I briefly explore how an inter-dependent community life is integral to the gospel:
I’ll develop those concepts more in the future, but for now – if you’re willing to be patient with me – I want us to remain as practical as possible.
Two major challenges were raised last night:
1. The need for commitment: If we’re going to be a genuine community then we must be willing to make some kind of tangible, loving commitment to one another. This commitment (what the bible calls a “covenant”) is what keeps us together in the midst of the inevitable conflict that comes when people “do life” together. Last night I likened this to a marriage relationship. Although our commitment is obviously less radical than a marriage, it is in essence the same kind of dynamic. In our case, the spirit of that covenant might be something like this:
“We agree, out of our deep mutual love for God, to pursue the Kingdom of God together, and help one another in that pursuit as often as possible, despite difficulty.”
Of course, that’s just the spirit of it. We’d have to flesh out together what it means in practice.
2. The danger of institutionalization: However, that very commitment bring with it the real danger of losing the “organic” character of our group. Commitment means we share responsibilities like discipling our kids, bearing the costs of mission, and stewarding our resources (including our money) together. However, often the kinds of structures that help groups do this can eventually turn a spontaneous and life-giving group into a cold and bureaucratic machine. Nobody wants that. But how do we avoid that pitfall?
I have a few ideas, but before I go spouting off I want your help. Please take some time this week to consider the following questions and give your input in the comments.
- What do you see as the key ingredients of a biblical community?
- Do you agree that community requires commitment? If so, what do you think of the covenant statement offered above (“We agree, out of our deep mutual love…”)
- What is it you like about our group now? What do you feel we’re missing?
- In your mind, what does it mean to be “organic” and what could cause our group to cease being organic?
- Can you think of any examples of groups or movements – either contemporary or historical – who have managed to keep the best of both worlds, that is, continually grow with organic spontaneity while still cultivating a deep and lasting level of commitment among its people?
denise on 
jenell on
1.The key ingredient I think would have to be “Love”, the willingness to set aside our own feelings, desires, wants, needs for the good of the whole. That involves setting aside our own egos and agreeing to what is best for the group as a whole.
2.This would also definitely require a commitment to the community. A willingness again to but the good of the community before your own feelings or thoughts on how something should be.
3. What I like about the group is the discussion. What I would like to see more of is more transparency, more openness, more involvement from everyone in the group.
4. It would cease to be organic if we get stuck on “this is who we do things” and are not open to new ways of doing something.
5. The communes of the 60′s. Since I was not involved in either a “Hippy” commune or a Christian commune I can’t answer this question but I do think they would be a good model in some ways. I had friends at the time involved in both but have lost contact with them now.
I put this on my personal blog and asked some other ministry friends to comment as well. I though everyone might be interested in their perspectives, so here are their comments:
From Ben Sternke (christchurchfw.org):
“we discovered the same thing, that commitment WAS required for community. We asked those wanting to be on our core team to sign a covenant with 8 “fleshed-out” commitments that are in the spirit of what you’re talking about here.
A lot of people were very sqeamish about the commitments, though (some ended up signing on, others didn’t). But we’ve found it (so far) to be vital for a community to form, and many have already commented that the simple discipline of “showing up” that the covenant requires has been important for their spiritual formation.
I want to answer some of your other questions, too:
1. Can’t give a comprehensive list or anything, but I think that one of the necessary ingredients for true community is some kind of mutual sharing of resource, some kind of gift economy (like in a marriage or family – the money I earn doesn’t belong to “me,” we use it in common within the family, according to our values). Without some kind of shared economy, I think we’re saying but not doing community.
4. I believe you cannot really have fully functional life without structure (like a skeleton to hang your muscles on so you can work and run and play), so it seems that to keep things “organic” would simply mean to make sure the structures never fossilize – make sure osteoperosis doesn’t set in. Re-think, review “the way we do things” often so we don’t end up doing stuff because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
5. I met a few people from a monastic community called Life Mission Fellowship last year who seem to have this kind of community (http://life-mission.org/) – their vows are very extensive, and it takes a long time to actually get into the community, but they seem to maintain a very spontaneous, joyous way of life. “Hard to get in, easy to get out” they told me.”
From Travis Green (emmausway.net):
“Breaking free from our culture’s individualism is very difficult. Even when it comes to talking about community, we often perceive (consciously or not) community to be this external thing that I, as an individual, need. The big shift is to realizing that a community is *what we are*. Who we are as persons (aka individuals) is only realized within that community context. And it’s also not just any old community, but the community gathered to follow Jesus.
I like your basic covenant outline. At my church, instead of membership we do a “minister’s liturgy” that borrows heavily from Anglican/Catholic ordination rites. But, since we see ourselves as a centered-set rather than bounded-set community, the minister’s liturgy is offered as a public way for people to declare their commitment to the community, not as an entryway to full participation in the community.
I agree with Ben about structure. It is good and necessary. But to paraphrase a line from Rob Bell, it is a wonderful servant and a horrible master.”