Social Bookmarks
Tradition Five
Again, before I start, I want to make mention of the usage of assembly in lieu of “church.” Please refer to the previous post for an explanation.
Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the
alcoholic who still suffers.
One primary purpose… one reason for meeting… to help the alcoholic who still suffers. Does the church exist to help the human who still suffers?
Lets skip over the fact that must assemblies actually cause more suffering to their people then they do good, and look instead at the heart of “church.”
Why do we exist?
When you go to an assembly (of “believers”), normally, it’s to get “fed,” to recieve that spiritual insight that you missed out on yourself. I’m not stating that teaching in assemblies is a bad idea, in fact I quite support it, but often times I wonder if this teaching is the central goal of an assembly. I know that the reformers were large fans of preaching, I believe it was Calvin who said that the church should never assemble without preaching and praying, but should that truly be our central goal.
If we are to, as Andrew said, simply make “Following Christ” our central goal, how would that look when we took on this tradition as our own? Would we state something along the lines of “Each assembly exists for one primary purpose–to carry it’s message to the human who still suffers.” And, if we stated such an ideal, how well would we go about carrying it out?
Would we move from assemblies where we are preached at to assemblies where we actually build caring relationships? Relationships that could then lend a hand to their members when one gets hurt? Relationships that would offer the hope of Christ rather than the condemnation of sin?
Would we learn to better spot suffering, or even, daresay, open our eyes to the suffering closest to us? Would we be willing to part with our money, our time, and perhaps even our safety, to carry the message of hope to those that still suffer?
Tradition Four
Before I begin, I must state I am using the word “assemblies” in lieu of the word “churches.” I feel like we often take our own personal “churches” as a representation of church catholic, often to the detriment of our unity. We must remember that we are part of one body, and the many little bodies that we find ourselves in must not be thought of as the one body. This exercise in not saying “churches” is to help remind ourselves of that fact. When I refer to church, I am referring to the Church catholic, or the unity of all believers.
Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups
or A.A. as a whole.
What can the Church learn from this “tradition”?
I grew up in a denomination that made it’s assemblies, for the most part, autonomous. Now, I know certain denominations (traditions, groups, whatever) such as Catholics, Anglicans, and Mark Driscoll’s assemblies, are not all that autonomous, but I’m under the impression that most assemblies are fairly (if not wholly) autonomous.
As autonomous organizations, assemblies are able to better “fit” the culture around them. With no earthly headship dictating the ways and means of an assembly, it is up to that assembly itself to decide where and how they can be most effective in carrying out the message of Christ. (Not proselytizing, but representing the hope of the Cross)
This topic is an interesting one to look at if you’re part of the now entirely autonomous “organization” known as emergent. Emergent Village is, essentially, the center of Emergent (US- I would state that it is not the center of Emergent Worldwide). Recently, EV asked the opinion of it’s “members” (for lack of better word… perhaps blog readers is a better phrase) what they would like to see happen with EV over the next few years. The overwhelming response showed a desire to see EV as a networking Hub, and not the headship of this group.
This, at least now within the realm of Emergent (US), leaves us with an model that fits within the intentions of AA’s fourth tradition. This model keeps the idea that our assemblies should remain autonomous, yet we still have a mouthpiece if we need someone to speak on the behalf of the many. The beauty of the group known as Emergent is that we retain our autonomy that has enabled us to fit in the cracks of culture to help wherever and however we are needed.
Thoughts?
Tradition Three
Before we begin, I must say somethign about my absence over the past few days. I work for Chik-fil-a and occassionally travel to help open up new stores around the country. I left Wednesday for Alabama and, when I got here, I discovered that I forgot to pack my charger. I’ve realized over the past few days how much I require a computer to go about my life.
Also, Chick-fil-a makes assigns you a roomate whenever they get you a hotel room. So, when I walked into my room and met my roomate, he held up a newpaper that said “Obama Wins” and says “Sad news man, sad news.” I responded simply, “Only if you’re a McCain fan.” I think he got the point and the topic has not resurfaced.
Now, onto Tradition Three.
The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
In church, we often create requirements to establish membership. Normally, these include things like Baptism, Admission of Faith, and acceptance by the Church body. These things seem superfluous in comparision with “The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.”
Now, I realize that church membership is on its way out, and I am completely behind this trend. However, we also tend to tag other un-spoken requirements, such as the lack of social stigmas. We often “require” that individuals believe what we feel they should believe in order to join our fellowships.
What would church look like if the only requirement to join in fellowship with us was a desire to take part in changing the world.
What if you didn’t have to believe the right doctrine?
What if you didn’t have to hide you scars and your pain?
What if you didn’t have to make yourself socially acceptable?
What if?
Would you join that church?