Frazee identifies western individualism (that leads to a dysfunctional or co-dependent culture in churches and small groups) as a major obstacle to spiritual growth. His solution is to unite the church around a common, biblical purpose that revolves around the overarching purposes of loving God and neighbor that are facilitated by:
- common belief (doctrines),
- spiritual practices (spiritual disciplines), and
- virtues (character).
- authority (because disclosure without accountability creates co-dependency),
- a common creed/affirmation,
- traditions,
- spiritual practices, and a
- common mission.
There are some things in this section that both our American culture and our church heritage have an aversion to for various reasons. Keeping these in mind, reflect on some of the possible benefits and/or pitfalls of this overall framework. Was there anything you disagreed with in this overall framework and why? What do you find of most value in this reading?
.
(Note: If you do not have a blogger account, then respond as "other" rather than "anonymous," and be sure to include your name.)
click on the "COMMENTS" link at the bottom right of a post to share your response and thoughts...
1 comment:
In Churches of Christ, there is an understandable aversion to anything that looks or sounds like a creed. Yet I am struck by the fact that New Testament writers often make statements of faith that sound sort of like a creed. Affirmations of the faith we hold in common in a systematic and memorable way should aid not only in instruction, but in strenghtening our common bond in community. It seems to me that summarizing our "core beliefs" which undergird our "core practices" should be a beneficial excercise.
One of the things that stood out for me is Frazee's point that assimilation into a congregation and spiritual formation are not the same and often get confused, which often results in assimilation happening without spiritual formation. Spiritual formation excercises and spiritual practices need to be part of the assimilation process. I have rarely heard of a spiritual formation group in our fellowship, probably becaus our heritage has an unbalanced emphasis on rationalism and logic. Spiritual direction, fasting, simplicity, Bible reading as a spiritual practice, contemplative prayer, etc. seem too strange, foreign, or even Catholic for us, yet you find these practices modeled in scripture. I think that formation into the image of Christ needs to be a priority, otherwise there will probably be little true transformation which would make us more like a social club than we would like to admit.
The idea of "authority" or "accountability" also stood out to me. Disclosure without accountability in small groups could be a reason why some groups stagnate and produce no real transformation. It seems that transformation can rarely if ever happen except in the context of authentic community that includes accountability.
Pitfalls? There are always pitfalls to everything. Sure there is the possibility that formulaic or creedal formulations can replace praxis. Sure there is the danger that spiritual practices and disciplines can be abused in such a way that they become an end in themselves. Of course there is the possiblity that authority and accountability can be abused. But I do not believe these pitfall outweigh the benefits or the necessity of a framework for community that includes these elements. Scripture models these elements of community, so it seems to be that facilitating true community is a must just as much as being aware of the pitfalls are.
Post a Comment