Disorganized religion
My friend, Cat, notices a difference between the way men and women think about organization. She is a member of a pagan community that, from what I can tell, is a very attractive alternative to organized religion to many of its members. It seems, though, that the men want to organize the community while the women want it to remain in its current state. I can understand the dilemma.
While I could comment on the fact that the decision to organize or not to organize divides between men and women I’ll leave that to Cat to explore. I want to look more at the organized/unorganized aspect of religion. Too much of either can stifle a community.
When I lived in Chattanooga I belonged to a very large church that my family just got lost in. We quit attending because things were so organized that it was next to impossible to get engaged in the Church. We started attending a much smaller church, a church that would have fewer than a hundred in attendance each Sunday. Aside from an organized service each Sunday, and I’m using that term loosely even here the only way things got done in this church was by someone noticing it needed to be done and calling a couple of other members and doing it. Surprisingly a lot got done but a lot of efforts were often duplicated and the pastor often was unaware of what was being done.
The church I currently attend is a medium sized church. The one important thing that I believe our church has done is to institute small groups and it encourages its members and those just attending to get involved in at least one of them. The church itself is highly organized in that the pastoral staff is broken down into seperate areas of authority answering back to someone or some committee in what they are doing however many of the small groups act autonomously and are free to mobilize its member into doing things in the community without being burdened by getting permission and answering to a committee.
I’m sold on small groups. I think they are the way the church was meant to operate.
Religion | Larry D. Burton | 23 March 2006 |
7 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Dan Lyke, 3/23/2006 @ 6:48 pm
I recently joined a cycling club, and this morning I went on my second ride with them. Thursdays are a split day for the regular rides, and there were only three of us in the slower group. As we went around the loop, the other two folks were very conscious of pointing out “normally, we’d stop here to regroup”. The message was very clear that I was expected to be as responsible for the success of future group rides as any current leaders; it immediately transformed my experience of the group from one of attendee to one of participant.
I’m also reading Jimmy Carter’s recent book, and in it, as you’d expect, he talks a lot about his faith, specifically why he considers himself an Evangelical Christian. He quotes a dictionary definition that goes something like: “…Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the scriptures … in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself…” (and he uses this to muse on the direction that the Southern Baptist Convention has taken, but I digress).
It seems to me that the balance between institutional provision, that feeling that you just can’t get involved because it’s too big, and the feeling of immediately feeling like the distance between you and the leaders is that they’ve taken one step forward, is the difference between the church (or, in my case, club) providing a service and being a community.
Both have their place. There are big churches with a backup band and professional lighting, and I’m a member of several organizations which do political lobbying and the occasional fundraiser, but don’t say much about “how you can get involved”.
However, as you note, the community in which I’m immediately shown ways in which I can be involved (and it has to be subtle, I’ve run screaming from organizations which say “Oh, you have these skills? We *need*…”) and which works to blur the distinctions between leaders and members are the ones that I want to have more to do with.
By warkitty, 3/24/2006 @ 11:20 am
Interesting Dan should mention a cycling club. I’ve become very active in the Chattanooga Bike Club over the past two years, led beginner rides (varying the speed according to who shows up and making sure everyone knows that regardless their skill, we WANT them out there riding) and volunteering to help with our major events.
The difference is, there’s a common goal in the cycling club, that being getting more people riding and making the roads safer for those of us already out there.
I’ve yet to see a common goal in the rather scattered and varied pagan community. There’s this common misconception that comes up that pagans have at least some dogmatic similarities, but really the only thing we can hang our hats on is that we’re not the dominant religion. If we’ve a common goal at all, its to be more accepted, but that’s not a strong enough goal to bring the various groups together for long periods of time under any formal organization.
Now, there are plusses to the idea. The theory is that we’d be able to self regulate some of the charlatans and such by setting standards of education or something. For instance, a standard of qualifications to be able to claim “I’m a reiki master” (a New-Age healing technique). The problem is, reiki isn’t just a pagan phenomenon, so really now these guys are talking about regulating the entire New Age community, and that’s yet another ball ‘o wax. That’s like the Baptists saying they’re going to regulate the code or standard by which all Christians get to claim they’ve got the Gift of Tongues.
In reality though, I think I’m just more comfortable with the social organization we’ve got. We have organized groups with a leadership with a few events where all groups are welcome to come, meet each other, share knowledge and ideas, and remain autonomous. Sort of like having potlatches for the different groups and individuals so no one has to think they’re the only pagans around, but no one has to follow a dogma that they’re not comfortable with. It has its pitfalls too, but its far more comfortable when dealing with matters of Spirit, in my opinion.
Then again, if I were Christian I’d be churchless, so I guess I’m just that sort of person anyway.
By http://www.flutterby.com, 3/24/2006 @ 3:23 pm
Okay, clarification. We’ve got enough critical mass out here that we can separate out the political and advocacy arm of the bicycling movement from the various groups of people getting together to enjoy a common activity. Among other groups, we have the MCBC, a politically powerful group that does all sorts of liason work with law enforcement, local governments, grant systems. I’ve been a member for a while, but I do little other than send them a check once a year and read the newsletter occasionally. On the other side, I have Marin Cyclists, which says “you have to be a member or sign waiver to ride with us”, but really it seems to be more a social construction than an organizational one, it’s a way for like-minded people to communicate “I’m going to do this, anyone wanna come?”
To take this into your pagan communities, you have the people who want to protect (legally or otherwise) the sacred traditions of XYZ (aside: Fun is getting two Reiki practitioners in a room and bringing up the ancient roots of the practice. It helps to have popcorn when you sit back and enjoy the show), and you have the people who want to share the experiences that they get from rituals and community. So when the politics of the former becomes too restrictive, force them off to create their own trademarks and build corporations with open charters if they want those trademarks to be communal property (for deities’ sakes, keep them away from any other legal means), and keep meeting in living rooms and back yards.
To drop back to Larry’s experience of Christianity and churches, there are similar divisions. These days the public face of Christianity is the exclusionists and the politicizers, the Pat Robertson types who say things like: “You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.”
And then on the other hand you have those who use their faith as impetus to cooperation and building inclusive communities.
As an atheist, I respect the latter far more.
By gdc25, 3/24/2006 @ 11:27 pm
how interesting that you would post on this topic at this time. Before moving up here I was very active in my church home but felt it was as my momma used to say “getting too big for its britches”.
Then we began attending a church up here that had around 1,000 attendees on Sundays (3 services) and although my son loved the church’s youth program and I my wife, who is a loner, loved the contemporary services I felt lost in the mix. My only salvation being that I could play softball at a pretty high level and the church team NEEDED somebody that could play the game. (I invited myself, and patiently sat the bench until they asked where I played).
I’ve since started the Financial Peace University program in our church and have met several people and found a church home through that, But it was quite a struggle.
By Dan Lyke, 3/27/2006 @ 7:04 pm
Hmmm… This is the fourth time I’ve written this, between browser crashes and some weird SQL errors, so pardon me if it just comes across as overwrought and underthunk…
Warkitty, I’m lucky enough to live in a place with enough bicycle critical mass that we can pick and choose between our political advocacy biking groups and our social biking groups. I’m a member of MCBC for the politics and Marin Cyclists for the social. In the latter, the feeling really seems to be about the shared experience of rolling over pavement, with very little emphasis on organizational structure or top-down meaning, in the former I’ve always had the feeling that either I could help park bikes at an outreach program, or I could dedicate my life to the politics, but have very little room for participating in between.
But we’ve also got two or three groups for mountain bike trail access, quite a few other places to get into the social experience of riding, and twenty miles north or south gives a whole ‘nother list of organizations. Truly an embarassment of riches.
To take this into your pagan communities, you have the people who want to protect (legally or otherwise) the sacred traditions of XYZ (aside: Fun is getting two Reiki practitioners in a room and bringing up the ancient roots of the practice. It helps to bring popcorn), and you have the people who want to share the experiences that they get from rituals and community. So when the politics of the former becomes too restrictive, force them off to create their own trademarks and build corporations with open charters if they want those trademarks to be communal property (for deities’ sakes, keep them away from any other legal means), and keep meeting in living rooms and back yards.
To drop back to Larry’s experience of Christianity and churches, I think that of necessity as an organization becomes more of a service and less of a community, it also tends to become more about self-perpetuation, serving its members/customers only as that’s an end towards keeping the organization vital. One of my complaints with MCBC is that they’ve taken on some huge projects, while ignoring some small, easily accomplished tasks that would build more of a feeling of getting things done among cyclists. The reality is that somehow they’re accomplishing the big things, and the little things are working themselves out, but in other non-profits I’ve seen situations where the causes get manufactured in ways that can’t possibly be fulfilled order to attract donations to pay the salaries of the directors, rather than to fulfill the desires of their members.
I think churches, especially big Southern churches (although I got this feeling about the Berkeley UU congregation, so it’s not exclusive), fall prey to this flaw quite often. They become about getting TV time and putting on a multimedia show for the audie… errr… congregation, and while that’s entertaining and might even be fulfilling for those who find their spiritual experiences in that sort of mass experience, they’re about providing that experience because that’s what pays the bills, not about building community because that’s what feeds the soul.
By Larry D. Burton, 3/30/2006 @ 10:11 pm
Dan, I had to look far enough through the spam but I found your comment in my comment spam catcher. I need to check through that thing more often.
Dan, for a long time I took exception to people referring to the Church as a social club. I’ve recently come to the conclusion that the McKendree United Methodist Church does a great job at being a social club and it is through that social club that The Church comes together and oes it’s job. We have a wonderful show on Sunday morning and it brings a lot of similar minded people together in an atmosphere that makes one think about what we can do together for the local community and for missions. The small groups are where the building community and feeding the soul comes in.
By Dan Lyke, 3/31/2006 @ 9:58 pm
Huh, wonder what about that triggered the spam catcher?
I think generally we’re in agreement: socialization can be a means to building community, and is a perfectly valid end on its own, but that an organization can provide socialization as a service without building community. I’ve encountered at least one UU church and one other (”new age” Tantra-ish) community that distinctly had that feel, and the latter experience was one in which I mistook socialization for community for a while.
In fact, I think I may finally be gaining the words to write about that experience on my web site…