Some people have been visiting our church lately. Checking us out. One of the comments I get is that they just love the authenticity that they feel. They see that people are really free to be who they are without fear of judgement. They get the sense that they are allowed to explore their own spiritual paths and discover their own ways of living out their faith. Some say that they are just searching and don’t want to make any commitments in any direction, and they get the feeling that they are allowed to do that here in the context of a supportive, caring community who are partners in pilgrimage with them. They hint that they might keep trying us out.
So we’ll see. My experience is that those with a long history in the faith or in the church won’t last as long because, even though they love the raw, real authenticity, at some point they want to see expressions of spiritual authority, direction, vision, goals, structure, and some kind of a moral standard. Searching for the perfect church, they think they’ve found the solution to their disappointing church experience from the past. But when they begin to realize that they’ve only found the opposite of their previous church experience, they think that adding structure, authority and higher moral standards to this out of control congregations would make this authentic church experience better.
They are wrong. I’ve concluded that you can’t have both. You can’t have authority, vision, goals, structures, and higher moral standards along with raw authenticity. You can’t. You have to choose. You can’t manage people and expect them to feel free. You can’t cast vision for a community and expect people to feel independent and autonomous. You can’t govern people’s ideas and life-styles and expect them to feel self-directed. You can’t establish some kind of moral standard and expect people not to feel judged when they don’t or can’t comply. You can’t lead people in a certain direction and expect them to feel liberated to explore their own paths.
The wine-skin story applies. Some desire new wine, but they might want it in the hardened, crusty leather of the old wine-skins. Won’t happen. New wine requires new, supple leather that expands and stretches and moves in all kinds of ways. And this unpredictable, loose, unmanageable kind of non-structure is undesirable for many.
If you like this post, or if you'd like to use it, consider buying me a beer.
David Hayward is an artist trapped in a pastor's body, stripping to the essential.
That is a very wise application of the wine-skin parable. One of the tougher ones to come to terms with.
Hi David, Was having that very conversation the other day, things have to change, move, flow, the body is also a flexible analogy, supple, mobile, creative, the next question is when will we become the old wineskin and will we recognise it? Loving the blog and the cartoons, blessings
Jason
i hear ya jason.
thanks johno
Several things happen in this type of atmosphere. People don’t want to have to look at what they really believe…they want the group to have a statement of faith they can hide behind. They don’t want to develop a spiritual practice…they want the group to have a recommended one. They don’t want to look at their own morals (or lack thereof), they want the group to have “standards”. On the other hand, it can be open season for those who have off-the-beaten-path beliefs…the person who thinks that reading their horoscope in the morning paper is a spiritual practice and a valid one at that…those that have been secretly using the Abraham material or other things of that sort. In hosting a group such as that, I did set some parameters, although loose. Practices that involved animal sacrifice were frowned upon ( santeria, yeruba, sabienism). After the dust starts to settle, and people realize that you’re not going to tell them what to believe, and that this isn’t the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the group may have dwindled, but it will contain those who are ready/interested in exploring their faith. They are ready to look at who/what they call God…they are willing to look at the whole package and to grow with it and in that growth there is usually a period of unbelief, or at least what looks like it. If things seem to be dragging, you, as pastor/facilitator/host, can throw in a question and usually that’s all it takes to open it up again. Very interesting concept. I tried it with a small group for 4 years. The results were good, at least I think so.
Thank you my friend! I read this at the end of an afternoon studying Mark 2:18-22.
This post along with…
http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/3247
…are of great worth!
http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/3939
D, how many waves you gotta ride before you just take the entire roll of the surf?
I’m just trying to be difficult here, hacking on you, riding you a bit.
I am glad that there is a constant in your entries, and that the constant is you. Keep up your adventures in community. The church needs it desperately, and your communities do thank you for it.
yeah man.. i was just reading about Anne Hutchenson. “we want revival and new stuff!!! oh, but it has to conform to what we’re used to and must be male.”
right on man. i hope i’m a noncontrolling pastor, but the temptation is strong. gotta let others walk with integrity.
I think you can I just don’t think it will look like it’s looked before and the presence of all those things might seem completely absent by those who are absolutely sure of what those things always look like. I think love, by its nature, creates authority but not a “taken” authority but a “freely given” authority. I have authority in my children’s lives but not because I’ve asked for it or insisted on it but because I am willing to lay down my life and my agenda for them. So they listen to me and give weight to my words (sometimes when I wish they wouldn’t!) because of love, me for them and them for me. Outside of the context of love authority tends toward tyranny and mostly what we see exercised in the Church today.
Going back to the original paradigm–did Jesus exhibit “raw authenticity”? Was “authority” present in his relationship with others?
Interesting post, but I’d like to disaggree. I would rather suggest the opposite. A good structure will help people to be themselves, to be free. There is always the danger of structure becoming so predominent that people are living to keep up a structure where structure must always help people to develop their potential and their ideas. If everyone is just themselves some might be themselveser – authenticity on its own might not set the akward and fearful free. What do you think?
from Brianmpei:
“I think love, by its nature, creates authority”
Hey Brian, just wanted to say thanks for this. This is a real head-twizzler and even after thinking about it for a few hours I haven’t got a full understanding of it yet. It’s beautiful, it’s an immense statement. It’s still very delicate and needs some explaining (as you supplied), but it’s very important.
I’m going to be using this.
yeah – along with others, thanks for this post.
It’s something I have been thinking about for a while – how to maintain inclusivity, freedom without developing some form of structure. I’ve had it with structures in a ‘been there done it’ sort of way to find with sadness that it does not work, or at least does not work for long before all you recreate is what you were trying to avoid.
On the other hand (rather than but …) when given the chance for freedom and authenticity some people seem to become scared and threatened by it. They give the impression that they want structure and want to be led – but I wonder if that is because we do not really know how to exist in a new way in new times?
This is a deep question which needs some serious thought and thanks for getting me thinking.