Final Group Reflections

It was interesting to share perspectives on this reading with others in the reading group. We are from a smaller congregation of 100 people in a mid-sized Midwestern town of around 40,000 people. This book was written more from the perspective of a large urban area (Arlington, Texas) in a mega-church. The over idealized version of the neighborhood of the 50's didn't quite fit the perspective of many of us. There were people in neighborhoods even back then that did not want to converse with or be involved in any way in the neighborhood. There were those that felt Frazee went overboard in attacking individualism as an ungodly problem, stating it was a trait, not a problem. Isolation, it was felt, was a problem, but individualism was merely a trait.

The church "model" that Frazee presents in this book is more helpful than the stilted view of life in the past. However, even here there are things that do not fit a smaller church. The idea of neighborhood groups is a good thing, but the "mid-sized group" would be more akin to the entire congregation in a congregation of 100 people or less. In spite of this, it was helpful to note that each meeting, the neighborhood, the mid-sized, and the congregational, each had a clear focus that complemented each other. The group noted that our meetings need to also have a clearly understood purpose.

The group also discussed Frazee's discussion of the need for a common understanding of our beliefs, practices, and virtues. A congregation needs to understand what a Christian should look like, what a Christian should believe, and how a Christian should behave. The overall preaching and teaching program should contribute toward this. The historic aversion in our fellowship to anything that looks or sounds like it may be a creed needs to be dealt with, but it should not prevent careful study that results in summary statements. This is not a "creed," because creeds can be a double-edged sword. In the earliest days, creeds were a means of uniting believers in sound faith and practice over against the heretics. The double edge is when they become so rigid and certain, that they become the certain, indisputable standard over scripture and hamper deeper theological and doctrinal reflection that would result in needed growth and corrections. It was stated that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. In other words, rigidity in faith is like rigor mortis, it prevents growth. Questioning, re-examination, experience, etc. lead to a stronger faith, not a weaker faith.

Understanding these pitfalls should enable study that results in summary statements of faith and a common understanding on Christian belief, behavior, and virtues, which will lead to measurable standards, and accountability. However, it was felt that this should not be so overly regimented and rigid that it does not recognize the uniqueness of each individual and the fact that every believer begins from a different starting point. A "cookie-cutter" approach is not healthy, since it ignores the unique learning needs of each person. There needs to be a sensitive flexibility in discipleship efforts.

Without a common understanding based on a good theological and doctrinal foundation, there is the likelihood of co-dependent fellowship (it doesn't hold anyone to commonly understood biblical standards, possibly enabling fellowship and care without accountability), a greater lack of spiritual growth, shallow spiritual depth, and even a sense of unhappiness and discontent.

A sermon series could go through common core beliefs of the Christian faith, behaviors of the Christian life, and Christian virtues to grow in. This would be one way to move toward a clearer commonality of faith and practice.

Overall, there were some things to commend this particular read, even though there were things that didn't really fit and some overly idealized perceptions of reality.