Slowing down can be hard at times, but without having a heart of solitude can we really be present as we minister or serve others in our community?
"Without the solitude of heart, the intimacy of friendship, marriage and community life cannot be creative. Without the solitude of heart, our relationship with other easily become needy and greedy, sticky and clinging, dependent and sentimental, exploitative and parasitic, because without the solitude of heart we cannot experience the others as different from ourselves but only as people who can be used for the fulfillment of our own, often hidden needs." ( Henri J. M. Nouwen "Reaching Out: The Three Movements of The Spiritual Life", pg. 43)
January 28, 2010
January 26, 2010
Slowing Down (A Two Week Experement)
In response to Good Magainze's latest issues entitled, "The Slow Issue," and how it revealed some things to me about Christian spiritual disciplines; we are slowing down the process of this blog over the next two weeks. Instead of being one large blog entry post on every Tuesday, over the next two weeks there will be multiple blog entries building up to one large culminating entry.
I encourage you to reflect on what you read, meditate on the scripture passages that will be posted, try to apply it as you see fit, and enjoying living a little slower over the next two weeks.
"One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles:" (Luke 6:12-13)
I encourage you to reflect on what you read, meditate on the scripture passages that will be posted, try to apply it as you see fit, and enjoying living a little slower over the next two weeks.
"One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles:" (Luke 6:12-13)
January 19, 2010
Urban Tribes: A Communal Culture Shift (#3)
In the previous two weeks we have discussed a working definition for urban tribes, as well as what the Bible and church history believe about topics those in urban tribes are concerned with. During this week, we will look further at the last two steps of Gordon’s Lynch’s model by entering into a “mutually exclusive conversation,” asking questions of both perspectives and looking to see what new insights might be gained through our theological reflection of Urban Tribes.
Mutually Critical Conversation
Single Life
Urban tribes are made up solely of single individuals. By existing in their current form, urban tribes reinforce that it is okay to for an individual to be single for a majority of their life, if not for their whole life. Within current society, this is not something that many in the Church are willing to be okay with. But singleness should not be viewed as a middle ground between what was and what is to come, as both urban tribes and those in the Church view singleness. The Church, as well as urban tribes, needs to understand, as Paul did, that singleness is just as much of a call on someone’s life as marriage is. A life of singleness is a viable option, and should be respected within our current culture.
Within urban tribes, singleness has become a way to serve self-interests through the purchasing of material objects and/or participating in a self-gratifying community. Rather, Saint Paul argues that one is called to singleness in order to better serve Christ. The apostle even takes it as far as to state that an unmarried person can be concerned about the Lord’s affairs, or how to please the Lord, but a married person is concerned about the affairs of this world, or how to please their mate, meaning that their interests are divided (1 Cor. 7:32-34). Therefore singleness is not to be taken advantage of for one’s personal gain, but instead for the gain of the Kingdom, in the same way all people have been called.
Family
Urban tribes are calling the Church to redefine families based on a tribal idea, rather than a traditional view of family, such as the nuclear family. Single people cannot gravitate toward this definition of family because they do not fit into its constraints and usually their experience with the nuclear family was not good. Urban tribe members have made an important statement, that family is not limited to those in your bloodline, it also includes those who care for you, who you care for, and those who help to define you. In fact, this definition is very similar to the examples of family provided in the Bible. The main thing lacking from an urban tribe member’s definition of family is that it rarely includes any who are non-single people. Within the Biblical view of family all members of culture are included: single people, as well as those in couples, mothers, fathers, children, teens, and the elderly.
The Community
Urban Tribes challenge the current definition of family, crying out, community can no longer be defined as it is within American Christian Churches, as a group of individuals who gather in a church building once a week. The institutional Church needs to hear what urban tribes are saying and redefine community as a group of friends and/or family who live in community together. Within urban tribes one’s community supports who a person is and what they are about in order to help them find their own calling or meaning in life. Community is not about the roles that a person plays, but about how individuals work together to love and support each other. It is a persons community that connects them to the city they are living in. Single individuals are important to communities and should not be shunned away from them.
However, the Church can challenge urban tribes to be a part of heterogeneous and homogenous groups. Scripturally and theologically speaking, singles should be allowed to participate within a community where they are able to connect with others who are going through similar experiences, as well as be a vital part of communities that are not only made up of other singles. It is important that singles, families, the elderly, children, and teens dwell together in community, just as they did in the early Church. Families and the elderly can provide support that singles need in order to mature in life, while singles can help to provide mentoring to children and teens, as well as to provide support and encouragement to the elderly and those who are married. The Church can help communities such as urban tribes see that God should be the binding force between all who dwell in community together. As this binding force, God brings people together as a representative community, exemplifying love that God brings together a community in such a way that they become a representation of who God is.
Dating and Marriage
One mantra heard within the urban tribe community is that it is important to be careful about who one marries. Many urban tribe members have seen their parents’ marriages fail and are very cautious when considering giving themselves away in marriage. This might raise the question for Christians; to whether or not they need to become more cautious about whom they marry. Those in Urban Tribes might wonder why the divorce rate of Christians is the same as those who do not identify themselves as Christians, especially when the Bible views marriage as a lifetime commitment between two people. At the same time this conversation could be reversed, the Biblical view of marriage as a commitment between two people can also serve as a conversation piece within urban tribes, directing members toward the covenantal relationship between Christ and his Church. This type of relationship can also point urban tribe members toward the covenantal relationship between Christ and his Church. With this covenant in mind, one could pointing out that divorce exists because it is a part of the sin and depravity that exists within the world, further bringing clarity to why this has become such a cultural phenomenon within current society.
New Insights for the Church
The church in America can no longer look down on singleness if it wants to survive in today’s culture. Due to the rise of “never-marrieds” and single families, the church must open its doors to singles in a different way. Singleness needs to be viewed in light of Paul’s theology, as a calling given by God to individuals, much in the same way that marriage is. Single and college bible studies are no longer enough, and we cannot afford to separate singles from families and families from singles; the church must find a way to incorporate singles into the larger body.
The topic of community is much of the basis of discussion between urban tribes and the Church. For many, the America Christian Church community is understood as a group of individuals who meet in a building once a week, while within urban tribes community is defined as groups of singles who live together in an urban city during a time of transition between what was and what will come. Neither of these definitions of community are sufficient; community should be defined as the family of God. We can no longer allow ourselves to be defined as only individuals but should allow ourselves to be defined first and foremost by God, and then by our relationship with others. This type of community should reflect our identity in Christ; with singles, traditional families, and children united under God.
Challenging the “traditional” definition of family is essential due to the rise of broken marriages and families. Urban tribes, as well as early Church definitions of family, call today’s Church to see that blood is not the only thing that makes people family; rather any in need may be called family. At the same time, the church cannot afford to completely do away with our traditional views of family because they still play a part in our community and self-awareness; for instance, a child without a father may continue to desire a “father-figure.” Instead, there needs to be a redefinition of family that allows for traditional typology, with a broader working definition, allowing others to fulfill needed typologies, while also allowing singleness to be a viable option. (Notice I did not use the word “roles,” as to assume that traditional gender roles are in need of protection, but that is a conversation for another time).
Christian communities should mirror urban tribes in providing family-like guidance in dating relationships, as well as approving of dating partners. At the same time, churches should find ways to support singles if they do not decide to marry or date. Marriage should not just be viewed as something to be achieved, like a promotion to the next step in life. Marriage should be seen as a calling in life, just as singleness is a calling. Marriage is more than just the start of a new family, it is a representation of the relationship that Christ shares with his Church; like Christ and his Church, the two individuals become one.
Conclusion
On a personal note, as I approach my wedding date, I will be leaving behind a community of single friends who have supported me thus far and joining the leagues of the marrieds. As I move closer to this date I cannot help but think about what I have learned over the past few years of single life that has and will continue to benefit the Church. I have been in a world that many in the Church view as foreign, and I am a part of a generation and a culture that is changing the sociological make-up of our country; if the Church does not open their eyes to the change that is going on in current culture, thousands of singles will be left behind. Cultural items, such as urban tribes, have much to bring to the table of theological dialogues; urban tribes show us much about community, single life, families, dating, and marriage that the Church needs to learn from. At the same time, the Church also has much to offer to those who live in the urban tribe community. The Church holds the keys to the Kingdom of God, and to a life where people are called to find their true identities within something greater than their communities, or their selves, rather in God.
Mutually Critical Conversation
Single Life
Urban tribes are made up solely of single individuals. By existing in their current form, urban tribes reinforce that it is okay to for an individual to be single for a majority of their life, if not for their whole life. Within current society, this is not something that many in the Church are willing to be okay with. But singleness should not be viewed as a middle ground between what was and what is to come, as both urban tribes and those in the Church view singleness. The Church, as well as urban tribes, needs to understand, as Paul did, that singleness is just as much of a call on someone’s life as marriage is. A life of singleness is a viable option, and should be respected within our current culture.
Within urban tribes, singleness has become a way to serve self-interests through the purchasing of material objects and/or participating in a self-gratifying community. Rather, Saint Paul argues that one is called to singleness in order to better serve Christ. The apostle even takes it as far as to state that an unmarried person can be concerned about the Lord’s affairs, or how to please the Lord, but a married person is concerned about the affairs of this world, or how to please their mate, meaning that their interests are divided (1 Cor. 7:32-34). Therefore singleness is not to be taken advantage of for one’s personal gain, but instead for the gain of the Kingdom, in the same way all people have been called.
Family
Urban tribes are calling the Church to redefine families based on a tribal idea, rather than a traditional view of family, such as the nuclear family. Single people cannot gravitate toward this definition of family because they do not fit into its constraints and usually their experience with the nuclear family was not good. Urban tribe members have made an important statement, that family is not limited to those in your bloodline, it also includes those who care for you, who you care for, and those who help to define you. In fact, this definition is very similar to the examples of family provided in the Bible. The main thing lacking from an urban tribe member’s definition of family is that it rarely includes any who are non-single people. Within the Biblical view of family all members of culture are included: single people, as well as those in couples, mothers, fathers, children, teens, and the elderly.
The Community
Urban Tribes challenge the current definition of family, crying out, community can no longer be defined as it is within American Christian Churches, as a group of individuals who gather in a church building once a week. The institutional Church needs to hear what urban tribes are saying and redefine community as a group of friends and/or family who live in community together. Within urban tribes one’s community supports who a person is and what they are about in order to help them find their own calling or meaning in life. Community is not about the roles that a person plays, but about how individuals work together to love and support each other. It is a persons community that connects them to the city they are living in. Single individuals are important to communities and should not be shunned away from them.
However, the Church can challenge urban tribes to be a part of heterogeneous and homogenous groups. Scripturally and theologically speaking, singles should be allowed to participate within a community where they are able to connect with others who are going through similar experiences, as well as be a vital part of communities that are not only made up of other singles. It is important that singles, families, the elderly, children, and teens dwell together in community, just as they did in the early Church. Families and the elderly can provide support that singles need in order to mature in life, while singles can help to provide mentoring to children and teens, as well as to provide support and encouragement to the elderly and those who are married. The Church can help communities such as urban tribes see that God should be the binding force between all who dwell in community together. As this binding force, God brings people together as a representative community, exemplifying love that God brings together a community in such a way that they become a representation of who God is.
Dating and Marriage
One mantra heard within the urban tribe community is that it is important to be careful about who one marries. Many urban tribe members have seen their parents’ marriages fail and are very cautious when considering giving themselves away in marriage. This might raise the question for Christians; to whether or not they need to become more cautious about whom they marry. Those in Urban Tribes might wonder why the divorce rate of Christians is the same as those who do not identify themselves as Christians, especially when the Bible views marriage as a lifetime commitment between two people. At the same time this conversation could be reversed, the Biblical view of marriage as a commitment between two people can also serve as a conversation piece within urban tribes, directing members toward the covenantal relationship between Christ and his Church. This type of relationship can also point urban tribe members toward the covenantal relationship between Christ and his Church. With this covenant in mind, one could pointing out that divorce exists because it is a part of the sin and depravity that exists within the world, further bringing clarity to why this has become such a cultural phenomenon within current society.
New Insights for the Church
The church in America can no longer look down on singleness if it wants to survive in today’s culture. Due to the rise of “never-marrieds” and single families, the church must open its doors to singles in a different way. Singleness needs to be viewed in light of Paul’s theology, as a calling given by God to individuals, much in the same way that marriage is. Single and college bible studies are no longer enough, and we cannot afford to separate singles from families and families from singles; the church must find a way to incorporate singles into the larger body.
The topic of community is much of the basis of discussion between urban tribes and the Church. For many, the America Christian Church community is understood as a group of individuals who meet in a building once a week, while within urban tribes community is defined as groups of singles who live together in an urban city during a time of transition between what was and what will come. Neither of these definitions of community are sufficient; community should be defined as the family of God. We can no longer allow ourselves to be defined as only individuals but should allow ourselves to be defined first and foremost by God, and then by our relationship with others. This type of community should reflect our identity in Christ; with singles, traditional families, and children united under God.
Challenging the “traditional” definition of family is essential due to the rise of broken marriages and families. Urban tribes, as well as early Church definitions of family, call today’s Church to see that blood is not the only thing that makes people family; rather any in need may be called family. At the same time, the church cannot afford to completely do away with our traditional views of family because they still play a part in our community and self-awareness; for instance, a child without a father may continue to desire a “father-figure.” Instead, there needs to be a redefinition of family that allows for traditional typology, with a broader working definition, allowing others to fulfill needed typologies, while also allowing singleness to be a viable option. (Notice I did not use the word “roles,” as to assume that traditional gender roles are in need of protection, but that is a conversation for another time).
Christian communities should mirror urban tribes in providing family-like guidance in dating relationships, as well as approving of dating partners. At the same time, churches should find ways to support singles if they do not decide to marry or date. Marriage should not just be viewed as something to be achieved, like a promotion to the next step in life. Marriage should be seen as a calling in life, just as singleness is a calling. Marriage is more than just the start of a new family, it is a representation of the relationship that Christ shares with his Church; like Christ and his Church, the two individuals become one.
Conclusion
On a personal note, as I approach my wedding date, I will be leaving behind a community of single friends who have supported me thus far and joining the leagues of the marrieds. As I move closer to this date I cannot help but think about what I have learned over the past few years of single life that has and will continue to benefit the Church. I have been in a world that many in the Church view as foreign, and I am a part of a generation and a culture that is changing the sociological make-up of our country; if the Church does not open their eyes to the change that is going on in current culture, thousands of singles will be left behind. Cultural items, such as urban tribes, have much to bring to the table of theological dialogues; urban tribes show us much about community, single life, families, dating, and marriage that the Church needs to learn from. At the same time, the Church also has much to offer to those who live in the urban tribe community. The Church holds the keys to the Kingdom of God, and to a life where people are called to find their true identities within something greater than their communities, or their selves, rather in God.
January 12, 2010
Urban Tribes: A Communal Culture Shift (#2)
When looking at urban tribes through a cultural theological lens, it is important to provide a working definition of theology, which is the process of the community of God seeking truth about God and his relationship with creation through revelation within a cultural context. Theology is first a normative discipline; as Peter Hodgson states the primary focus of theology is “Theos” or “God,” making God the subject of knowing, or the absolute reference point. Theology does not exist in a vacuum; it must be a contextual discipline, which focuses on the universal questions of creation. Theological reflection is necessary in order to apply theology in real life situations, contexts, or in cultural reflection because we are not provided with a set of “ready-made” answers that can be imposed on all “peoples, contexts, and societies. Therefore, we must understand that the answers theology provides are shaped by our cultural “language, symbols, concepts, and concerns.”
Since theology involves answering questions to issues in our current cultural context, it should also involve asking questions about “how true, good, or constructive” a culture’s particular “values, beliefs, practices, and experiences” are. Cultural theologian, Gordan Lynch, proposes that to do this one must ask the following three questions: Does culture reflect a true picture of God, suffering, evil and redemption in light of revelation? Does culture manifest , “just relationships between people,” allowing communities to live authentically and promote the well being of humanity? To what extent does culture offer “constructive experience of pleasure, beauty, and transcendence?”
The revised correlational approach recognizes that Common Grace exists within creation and that truth and goodness exist outside a particular tradition or worldview by critically approaching a cultural item and identifying the positive aspects, while challenging what is damaging about the said item. The first step of Lynch’s model requires one to examine the cultural issues, idea, or material in order to understand the meaning of this aspect of culture “on its own terms without bring in any religious judgments.” That is the practice I underwent last week in my review of the book Urban Tribes. The second step of Lynn’s (should this be Lynch’s) model focuses on looking at the Christian tradition to identify similar concerns and issues that Urban Tribes addresses. In order to do this I have broken up concerns and issues into four main topics: singleness, family life, community, and dating/marriage.
Singleness
Over the history of the Church the single person has played an important role within the Church community. Jesus heralded that marriage is no longer a duty in the community of the kingdom of God, a radical new understanding during Jesus’ time for some (Matthew 19:10-12). From the beginning of the Church Paul advocated for the role of the single person as one whose attention is undivided, one who can focus on the affairs of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). As the Church community grew under the Catholic Church, singleness was made mandatory for priests, bishops, and popes in service to the Lord. Celibacy became respected by communities when single members of the community as Church members held high power. During the Reformation many of Reformers denied the Catholic ordinances of mandatory singleness for priests, bishops, and others members of church leadership. For unknown reasons this concept soon spread and singleness quickly became taboo in the post-reformation church community. In fact, Rodney Clapp argues in his book Families at the Crossroads that this belief is still continued today in many denominational communities. Therefore, today in the church there are many of singles who find themselves ostracized from faith communities because of the family focus of many church programs and leadership, as well as the overall church community.
Family
The family has taken many shapes over the course of the life of the Church. At the time of the birth of the Church, the family looked more like a tribal family unit then today’s nuclear family. When studying the gospels it appears that Jesus believed that his family was not primarily his blood relatives, but his family was composed of those who share his obedience to the will of God (Matthew 12:49-50). In fact, Jesus warns his followers that he did not come to bring the family unit together, but instead to divide it, “father against son,” or “daughter against mother” (Luke 12: 52-54). Taking these two verses together, Clapp has argued that Jesus calls his church to be a family of families, made up of those who follow Jesus as Lord. Peter in his epistle also continues Jesus’ message of redefining the family unit when he uses the phrases “Universal Church” and “Family of God” to refer to the church community (1 Peter 4:17). Paul also uses this family imagery when he calls believers “children of God” or “heirs of God,” something everyone in the first century would have associated with the Hebrew or Greek family unit (Romans 8:16-17, 9:8; Phil. 2:15). The writer of Hebrews even continues this new understanding of families, when he or she states that if disciples are not disciplined, they become illegitimate children of God (Hebrews 12:8). The Church understood that the promises of God transformed individuals into God’s literal sons and daughters, thus creating a new family. The Church understood that the family of God is more important than the cultural family. When the Church became a part of the Roman Empire under Constantine, the Christian idea of family began to look more like the current cultural understanding of family one found themselves in. The Church somehow lost its understand of itself as a family of God, and understood itself more as a religious organization. Today the Christian idea of family is the nuclear family, which consists of a heterosexual couple and their children, in which the husband maintains authority within the household and the mother manages the home and children. It is interesting to note that even in today’s society our family unit looks a lot like our own culture, which is shaped by capitalism and nationalism as Clapp argues.
The Community
The members early Church referred to themselves as the ekklesia, which is translated “church” in English. Early in Christianity the Church extracted their understanding of who they were to be from the fact that they believed that they now existed in a new age, during the reign of the Kingdom of God. The use of this Greek word suggests that the early Christian community saw themselves as a people brought together by the Holy Spirit, bound to one another through Christ in covenant as God’s people. This type of community did not just contain one current demographic of people, but rather a mosaic of individuals such as singles, families, elderly, and slaves. In the New Testament we find three names authors use to refer to the ekklesia, which all relate to each member of the Trinitarian God: the nation of God, the body of Christ, and the temple of the Spirit. Theologians have suggested that the ekklesia is a representation of God, who dwells in community bound together through the Spirit. As time went on, the Church declared that its essence is contained in four marks—apostolicity, catholicity, unity, and holiness. The Catholic, Orthodox, and other high church denominations raise apostolicity as the highest of the marks. During the Reformation, some theologians shifted the focus of “the essence of the church” towards the Word and sacrament, where the more radical reformers developed an ecclesiology that became known as congregationalism, asserting that the true church is made up of those who stand within a voluntary covenant with God. This movement toward covenantalism shifted the church toward a local understanding of church, instead of a universally understood reality. It is this covenantal ideology that has greatly affected American churches today. Today many church members understand the church to a building more than a group of people who find the identity within a universal metanarrative. Some Christian movements, including the Emergent Church, are currently challenging congregationalism ideals of church, but it is yet too early to see what affects these challenges might bring.
Dating and Marriage
The Bible does not speak directly about dating, and throughout Church history the Church has usually followed the marriage/dating structure of whatever culture it exists in. In fact, dating is a rather new invention of society as it moved towards a more consumer-driven culture. In centuries past marriages were arranged by parents, mostly for the economic benefits for both families. In the United States, even in the church, individuals are allowed to date others in order to find a suitable mate. Once one finds a desired mate of one’s choosing like one finds a new car or house, one makes a covenant to be married with that person “till death do they part.” In the New Testament marriage was viewed as a reflection of Christ’s union with the Church; (Ephesians 5: 31-32) it is in this holy communion that the two are bound together as “one” (Gen 2:24). It is this view of married is still widely held by many church denominations today.
Next week we shall look at the final two steps of Lynch’s cultural theological model in hopes of finding out what urban tribes can teach the church and what the church can teach those who find themselves in urban tribes. Until next Tuesday.
Since theology involves answering questions to issues in our current cultural context, it should also involve asking questions about “how true, good, or constructive” a culture’s particular “values, beliefs, practices, and experiences” are. Cultural theologian, Gordan Lynch, proposes that to do this one must ask the following three questions: Does culture reflect a true picture of God, suffering, evil and redemption in light of revelation? Does culture manifest , “just relationships between people,” allowing communities to live authentically and promote the well being of humanity? To what extent does culture offer “constructive experience of pleasure, beauty, and transcendence?”
The revised correlational approach recognizes that Common Grace exists within creation and that truth and goodness exist outside a particular tradition or worldview by critically approaching a cultural item and identifying the positive aspects, while challenging what is damaging about the said item. The first step of Lynch’s model requires one to examine the cultural issues, idea, or material in order to understand the meaning of this aspect of culture “on its own terms without bring in any religious judgments.” That is the practice I underwent last week in my review of the book Urban Tribes. The second step of Lynn’s (should this be Lynch’s) model focuses on looking at the Christian tradition to identify similar concerns and issues that Urban Tribes addresses. In order to do this I have broken up concerns and issues into four main topics: singleness, family life, community, and dating/marriage.
Singleness
Over the history of the Church the single person has played an important role within the Church community. Jesus heralded that marriage is no longer a duty in the community of the kingdom of God, a radical new understanding during Jesus’ time for some (Matthew 19:10-12). From the beginning of the Church Paul advocated for the role of the single person as one whose attention is undivided, one who can focus on the affairs of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). As the Church community grew under the Catholic Church, singleness was made mandatory for priests, bishops, and popes in service to the Lord. Celibacy became respected by communities when single members of the community as Church members held high power. During the Reformation many of Reformers denied the Catholic ordinances of mandatory singleness for priests, bishops, and others members of church leadership. For unknown reasons this concept soon spread and singleness quickly became taboo in the post-reformation church community. In fact, Rodney Clapp argues in his book Families at the Crossroads that this belief is still continued today in many denominational communities. Therefore, today in the church there are many of singles who find themselves ostracized from faith communities because of the family focus of many church programs and leadership, as well as the overall church community.
Family
The family has taken many shapes over the course of the life of the Church. At the time of the birth of the Church, the family looked more like a tribal family unit then today’s nuclear family. When studying the gospels it appears that Jesus believed that his family was not primarily his blood relatives, but his family was composed of those who share his obedience to the will of God (Matthew 12:49-50). In fact, Jesus warns his followers that he did not come to bring the family unit together, but instead to divide it, “father against son,” or “daughter against mother” (Luke 12: 52-54). Taking these two verses together, Clapp has argued that Jesus calls his church to be a family of families, made up of those who follow Jesus as Lord. Peter in his epistle also continues Jesus’ message of redefining the family unit when he uses the phrases “Universal Church” and “Family of God” to refer to the church community (1 Peter 4:17). Paul also uses this family imagery when he calls believers “children of God” or “heirs of God,” something everyone in the first century would have associated with the Hebrew or Greek family unit (Romans 8:16-17, 9:8; Phil. 2:15). The writer of Hebrews even continues this new understanding of families, when he or she states that if disciples are not disciplined, they become illegitimate children of God (Hebrews 12:8). The Church understood that the promises of God transformed individuals into God’s literal sons and daughters, thus creating a new family. The Church understood that the family of God is more important than the cultural family. When the Church became a part of the Roman Empire under Constantine, the Christian idea of family began to look more like the current cultural understanding of family one found themselves in. The Church somehow lost its understand of itself as a family of God, and understood itself more as a religious organization. Today the Christian idea of family is the nuclear family, which consists of a heterosexual couple and their children, in which the husband maintains authority within the household and the mother manages the home and children. It is interesting to note that even in today’s society our family unit looks a lot like our own culture, which is shaped by capitalism and nationalism as Clapp argues.
The Community
The members early Church referred to themselves as the ekklesia, which is translated “church” in English. Early in Christianity the Church extracted their understanding of who they were to be from the fact that they believed that they now existed in a new age, during the reign of the Kingdom of God. The use of this Greek word suggests that the early Christian community saw themselves as a people brought together by the Holy Spirit, bound to one another through Christ in covenant as God’s people. This type of community did not just contain one current demographic of people, but rather a mosaic of individuals such as singles, families, elderly, and slaves. In the New Testament we find three names authors use to refer to the ekklesia, which all relate to each member of the Trinitarian God: the nation of God, the body of Christ, and the temple of the Spirit. Theologians have suggested that the ekklesia is a representation of God, who dwells in community bound together through the Spirit. As time went on, the Church declared that its essence is contained in four marks—apostolicity, catholicity, unity, and holiness. The Catholic, Orthodox, and other high church denominations raise apostolicity as the highest of the marks. During the Reformation, some theologians shifted the focus of “the essence of the church” towards the Word and sacrament, where the more radical reformers developed an ecclesiology that became known as congregationalism, asserting that the true church is made up of those who stand within a voluntary covenant with God. This movement toward covenantalism shifted the church toward a local understanding of church, instead of a universally understood reality. It is this covenantal ideology that has greatly affected American churches today. Today many church members understand the church to a building more than a group of people who find the identity within a universal metanarrative. Some Christian movements, including the Emergent Church, are currently challenging congregationalism ideals of church, but it is yet too early to see what affects these challenges might bring.
Dating and Marriage
The Bible does not speak directly about dating, and throughout Church history the Church has usually followed the marriage/dating structure of whatever culture it exists in. In fact, dating is a rather new invention of society as it moved towards a more consumer-driven culture. In centuries past marriages were arranged by parents, mostly for the economic benefits for both families. In the United States, even in the church, individuals are allowed to date others in order to find a suitable mate. Once one finds a desired mate of one’s choosing like one finds a new car or house, one makes a covenant to be married with that person “till death do they part.” In the New Testament marriage was viewed as a reflection of Christ’s union with the Church; (Ephesians 5: 31-32) it is in this holy communion that the two are bound together as “one” (Gen 2:24). It is this view of married is still widely held by many church denominations today.
Next week we shall look at the final two steps of Lynch’s cultural theological model in hopes of finding out what urban tribes can teach the church and what the church can teach those who find themselves in urban tribes. Until next Tuesday.
January 5, 2010
Urban Tribes: A Communal Culture Shift
As I sat at a Christmas party with some of my closest friends and loved ones I could not help but feel at home. The feeling was not because I was in a current town I had once known as home or because the smell or song reminded me of a pastime, instead I felt at home because of the people I was with, my friends. In the book Urban Tribes: Are Friends The New Family?, author Ethan Watters discusses a social trend that emerged sometime around the early 1990s, one he has experienced, as well as studied, and refers to as “Urban Tribes.” While this phenomenon has gone almost unidentified by anyone within the Institutional Church, it has been well recognized by the rest of our culture. In fact, the church has done little to nothing to respond to it, so much as that many within urban tribes who will call themselves Christians, do not want to be in anything that looks like an Institutional Church because they feel their needs go unmet by the church community. Instead, “church” for many of them is within their tribal community because they believe this type of community looks a lot more like the New Testament Church than any Institutional Church they have been to. This is because it is in urban tribes, not in the church, that individuals are finding acceptance, meaning, and community.
So what is an urban tribe and what does this trend mean for the Church in the coming decade? (As a side note: anyone who is in ministry of any kind, especially youth and adult ministry needs to pick up this book, read it, and ponder how this social trend might affect his or her own ministry) urban tribes as Watters describes them are communities of “single-friends” who live in different urban communities around the world. How urban tribes form is unknown, their beginning seems to be more like a game of connecting the dots where friends connect with friends, who connect with even more friends, until a core group of friends is constructed. While some friends connect through work, others connect through college or living together. Not all members of one tribe are defined by one activity or trait, but many tribe members are living between post-college life and pre-family life, delaying marriage into their late twenties, thirties, and forties. It is impossible to simplify what urban tribes are, since their size, composition, rules and rituals vary radically. Tribe members seem to live in a constant pursuit of the future, living without an identity, stuck between childhood and marriage. Members of urban tribes are asking many of life’s big questions, as well as living unsure of or even without their own metanarrative while wanting to know there are others in similar circumstances.
As it relates to marriage and family, members of urban tribes do not have strong enough ties to their families to continue living within proximity to relatives. Instead, they are waiting to start families of their own having lived outside the home for six to seven years by the time they are 25. Members cannot point to one reason why they have chosen to postpone family life, and neither can Watters. Some people believe that many have postponed family life because they have seen how their parents’ generation fell apart, setting records in divorces rates, drugs use, adultery, and other forms of self-destructive behavior. Therefore, urban tribe members distrust the adult community and are trying to create a new adult self, distant from their parents’ generation. Others point to the fact that individuals have more free time now, that some have found themselves divorced at an unexpectedly early age, or even that women are freer to work in whatever field they choose, instead of being limited to working in the home. A more reasonable catalyst would be a combination of all of the above, almost as a type of stained glass mirror that individually brings different colors to the picture, yet when assembled together presents a larger piece of art.
Community and friendship rule all for those in urban tribes. Watters argues that the moral values of urban tribes are contained within the friendships and support groups that members create around them. He noticed that urban tribes have high clustering coefficients, which are found by dividing the number of people who know each other by the total number of people who could possibly know each other. A high clustering coefficient allows for reciprocal, positive relationships, which are entered freely. This high bond allows each member to support every other member of their tribe, as well as give each member of the tribe their own freedom to accomplish whatever they wish. Watters believes urban tribes are most like families in their expression of love during activities that carry meaning. It is a tribe’s friendship history that helps the group maintain a group identity; this history also helps the tribe to introduce new members into the tribe, as over time a new member becomes a part of the history of the tribe. Friendship in tribes may be broken down into friendship or personality roles such as the advice giver, the comedian, the deal negotiator, the ones in need, the mother like figure, and the social director yet, all friends are on a level playing field and bring an equal amount of importance to the group. During group functions individuals will separate off into smaller clusters of three to four people and gossip about their lives. Watters believes that these small groups of gossiping clusters allow for group members not only to pass along important information, which allows members to get to know each other, but that gossip is an act of expressing alliance to the membership of the group.
In urban tribes friendship plays an essential role in defining an individual. They see their selves in their friends and they see themselves in each other. Watters argues that friends do not necessarily reflect one’s true self, but an idealized notion of who a person is; therefore, friends are good at encouraging one another, but not as helpful at promoting needed change. Unlike many peoples' experiences within their family lives, tribes provide a positive environment for members at their current juncture in life by challenging one's self-loathing and providing the support necessary for a person to further discover who they are. For instance, while mom and/or dad might be asking why one is not married at 30, urban tribes do not ask this question, but care for the individual and support them for where they are in life. urban tribes bring something to the table that many families do not, acceptance. Therefore instead of traditional family relationships, it is through their tribe friendships that members learn to be comfortable in their own skin. The devotion that tribe members show one another helps teach members the devotion they want or believe they should give to their future significant other, if they even chose to marry.
Urban tribe communities help to connect tribes to their city through social responsibilities. Unlike the traditional “American way” of belonging to one organization, such as the Boy Scouts or the local PTA, urban tribes participate in social action through a “society of friendship.” Through the a society of friendship tribe members connect to one another spreading the word of need through existing networks and are then motivated to participate in social action through their strong friendship ties.
Many members of urban tribes are in a constant cycle of dating, moving from one person to the next, yet always staying true to their tribes. While many members find value in the institution of marriage, not many are moving quickly to get there. Tribe members are no longer idealistic about marriage, but have started questioning the marriage practices of the generation before them, feeling that many of their parents jumped into marriage too quickly. Many members are therefore looking for their “soul mates,” or at least someone that will provide as much support to them as their tribe has. If a member is dating someone, the approval of tribe members holds greater value than that of their family. Once a member marries s/he will then leave the tribe for their new mate. Even though it was not intentional, most tribes realize that a married person’s attention turns from the tribe to their new mate and their free time is spent with their significant other, rather than with the tribe. Even if tribes last for decades, they eventually will significantly change or break apart as members get married. Sociologists as well as many people still believe that many of these “never-marrieds” will one day be married. There has been a recent shift in tribal communities where marrieds are trying to extend tribal relationships into married life. Marrieds have also begun to form married urban tribes where majorities of people within the tribes are married. Now the larger destroyer of urban tribes seems to be location and children instead of marriage.
Next week we will explore Urban Tribes through a cultural theological lens in order to see what the Church can learn from these communities, as well as bring to these communities. Until next week.
So what is an urban tribe and what does this trend mean for the Church in the coming decade? (As a side note: anyone who is in ministry of any kind, especially youth and adult ministry needs to pick up this book, read it, and ponder how this social trend might affect his or her own ministry) urban tribes as Watters describes them are communities of “single-friends” who live in different urban communities around the world. How urban tribes form is unknown, their beginning seems to be more like a game of connecting the dots where friends connect with friends, who connect with even more friends, until a core group of friends is constructed. While some friends connect through work, others connect through college or living together. Not all members of one tribe are defined by one activity or trait, but many tribe members are living between post-college life and pre-family life, delaying marriage into their late twenties, thirties, and forties. It is impossible to simplify what urban tribes are, since their size, composition, rules and rituals vary radically. Tribe members seem to live in a constant pursuit of the future, living without an identity, stuck between childhood and marriage. Members of urban tribes are asking many of life’s big questions, as well as living unsure of or even without their own metanarrative while wanting to know there are others in similar circumstances.
As it relates to marriage and family, members of urban tribes do not have strong enough ties to their families to continue living within proximity to relatives. Instead, they are waiting to start families of their own having lived outside the home for six to seven years by the time they are 25. Members cannot point to one reason why they have chosen to postpone family life, and neither can Watters. Some people believe that many have postponed family life because they have seen how their parents’ generation fell apart, setting records in divorces rates, drugs use, adultery, and other forms of self-destructive behavior. Therefore, urban tribe members distrust the adult community and are trying to create a new adult self, distant from their parents’ generation. Others point to the fact that individuals have more free time now, that some have found themselves divorced at an unexpectedly early age, or even that women are freer to work in whatever field they choose, instead of being limited to working in the home. A more reasonable catalyst would be a combination of all of the above, almost as a type of stained glass mirror that individually brings different colors to the picture, yet when assembled together presents a larger piece of art.
Community and friendship rule all for those in urban tribes. Watters argues that the moral values of urban tribes are contained within the friendships and support groups that members create around them. He noticed that urban tribes have high clustering coefficients, which are found by dividing the number of people who know each other by the total number of people who could possibly know each other. A high clustering coefficient allows for reciprocal, positive relationships, which are entered freely. This high bond allows each member to support every other member of their tribe, as well as give each member of the tribe their own freedom to accomplish whatever they wish. Watters believes urban tribes are most like families in their expression of love during activities that carry meaning. It is a tribe’s friendship history that helps the group maintain a group identity; this history also helps the tribe to introduce new members into the tribe, as over time a new member becomes a part of the history of the tribe. Friendship in tribes may be broken down into friendship or personality roles such as the advice giver, the comedian, the deal negotiator, the ones in need, the mother like figure, and the social director yet, all friends are on a level playing field and bring an equal amount of importance to the group. During group functions individuals will separate off into smaller clusters of three to four people and gossip about their lives. Watters believes that these small groups of gossiping clusters allow for group members not only to pass along important information, which allows members to get to know each other, but that gossip is an act of expressing alliance to the membership of the group.
In urban tribes friendship plays an essential role in defining an individual. They see their selves in their friends and they see themselves in each other. Watters argues that friends do not necessarily reflect one’s true self, but an idealized notion of who a person is; therefore, friends are good at encouraging one another, but not as helpful at promoting needed change. Unlike many peoples' experiences within their family lives, tribes provide a positive environment for members at their current juncture in life by challenging one's self-loathing and providing the support necessary for a person to further discover who they are. For instance, while mom and/or dad might be asking why one is not married at 30, urban tribes do not ask this question, but care for the individual and support them for where they are in life. urban tribes bring something to the table that many families do not, acceptance. Therefore instead of traditional family relationships, it is through their tribe friendships that members learn to be comfortable in their own skin. The devotion that tribe members show one another helps teach members the devotion they want or believe they should give to their future significant other, if they even chose to marry.
Urban tribe communities help to connect tribes to their city through social responsibilities. Unlike the traditional “American way” of belonging to one organization, such as the Boy Scouts or the local PTA, urban tribes participate in social action through a “society of friendship.” Through the a society of friendship tribe members connect to one another spreading the word of need through existing networks and are then motivated to participate in social action through their strong friendship ties.
Many members of urban tribes are in a constant cycle of dating, moving from one person to the next, yet always staying true to their tribes. While many members find value in the institution of marriage, not many are moving quickly to get there. Tribe members are no longer idealistic about marriage, but have started questioning the marriage practices of the generation before them, feeling that many of their parents jumped into marriage too quickly. Many members are therefore looking for their “soul mates,” or at least someone that will provide as much support to them as their tribe has. If a member is dating someone, the approval of tribe members holds greater value than that of their family. Once a member marries s/he will then leave the tribe for their new mate. Even though it was not intentional, most tribes realize that a married person’s attention turns from the tribe to their new mate and their free time is spent with their significant other, rather than with the tribe. Even if tribes last for decades, they eventually will significantly change or break apart as members get married. Sociologists as well as many people still believe that many of these “never-marrieds” will one day be married. There has been a recent shift in tribal communities where marrieds are trying to extend tribal relationships into married life. Marrieds have also begun to form married urban tribes where majorities of people within the tribes are married. Now the larger destroyer of urban tribes seems to be location and children instead of marriage.
Next week we will explore Urban Tribes through a cultural theological lens in order to see what the Church can learn from these communities, as well as bring to these communities. Until next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)