On Needs
There's a definite sense within the North American Protestant Church, and perhaps broader, that consumerism has really taken a firm grip on the church.
50 years ago or more, you tended to be stuck with whatever church you picked out of your community (or grew up in) and your identity as part of that church was more important than your issues with it, unless you got kicked out.
But in the modern church, people tend to go where they can find the preacher they really like, or the programs that appeal to them, etc. The dynamic that they share with other members of their church is perceived to be a social one, rather than a communal one.
Additionally, there's a firm, ongoing, underlying sense that modern Christians are too needy.
Over and over, I see this refrain, "Church is not about you. It's about Christ, and serving others." "It's about self-sacrifice, about emptying yourself".
Conversationally, this feels a lot like when people are discussing some extreme end, and, in trying to get a moderate point in, you're accused of arguing for the opposite extreme. There isn't really room, anymore, for talking about how people's needs are being met, or should be met, because this automatically sounds like it's a consumerist concern, "When are my needs going to be met? When am I going to be fed?"
What is communicated by this is that, outside of the church, Christians should be practicing self-sufficiency. They should solve their own problems, work out their own issues, manage their own conflicts, so that when they show up to church, they can either A. just get along, or B. be so unattached from the personal process of church that they can simply participate and serve without any emotional or personal issues getting in the way.
I suspect that that's stating another extreme, but I don't see moderate positions stated. There probably should be a moderate position, but I'm not sure what it is.
I do see small groups pushed around a lot, and perhaps there's a sense that while what happens Sunday morning isn't about you, what happens during the week in your small group could, at some length, be about you.
But small groups, more often than not, tend to once again take on a certain format or identity, formed by the leader, or the majority of the participants. If you can't identify with the majority of the participants in viewpoint, your ability to actually have your needs met may be limited to the portions of your identity which share Venn diagram space with the other members.
Conflict, after all, exists at least partially because, not being telepathic, none of us can actually see into each other's heads, so a fair portion of our language usage is misconstrued. We think that we know what the other person is saying, and why, but we're often wrong, and are working off of subjective non-linear contexts which don't overlap.
Still, the question remains. What kind of needs are you allowed to have as a Christian that you may be able to expect some sort of interaction on? And if they aren't being met...if you're lonely, or feeling left out despite your best efforts, or it's being subtly communicated that if you'd just be more extroverted, everything would work itself out...is this valid for church?
What might be a better question is, what kind of community is church, or should it be?
At some level, church is something that you do on a weekly basis which you show up for, and perform a number of prescribed activities, and then you go home and live your life. One hopes that the way you live your life would be different because of activities and processes you undertake which birth from the church process, but church itself may not be the place for all of the things you are throughout the week.
Certainly, there is a concept that you should be able to truly be yourself when you are at church, and not pretend to be better off than you are (sleeping on a star), or having a better time, or handling the interstitial issues of life. You should be able to say that life is currently sucking intensely, and that you're not really managing, or you're doing well and it's great, or whatever, and that shouldn't be an issue.
But at the same time, if you say life sucks, you have to accept that people are going to pray for you that everything would be perfect, and that Charlie Brown would bring you flowers, and that unicorns would dance around you and that puppies would tumble into your life, and everything will be the BEST TIME EVER, and you'll just have to smile and nod, whether or not that has any bearing on your life, because, you know, they mean well, and this is a run-on sentence.
WE need language, useful language, about what is allowed, about needs that we're allowed to have, about what part of church is about us, or for us. I understand, there's a lot of navel gazing and self obsession in the church, as anywhere else.
But boundaries require both positive and negative definition, or it will always be unhealthy. So how do we start?
50 years ago or more, you tended to be stuck with whatever church you picked out of your community (or grew up in) and your identity as part of that church was more important than your issues with it, unless you got kicked out.
But in the modern church, people tend to go where they can find the preacher they really like, or the programs that appeal to them, etc. The dynamic that they share with other members of their church is perceived to be a social one, rather than a communal one.
Additionally, there's a firm, ongoing, underlying sense that modern Christians are too needy.
Over and over, I see this refrain, "Church is not about you. It's about Christ, and serving others." "It's about self-sacrifice, about emptying yourself".
Conversationally, this feels a lot like when people are discussing some extreme end, and, in trying to get a moderate point in, you're accused of arguing for the opposite extreme. There isn't really room, anymore, for talking about how people's needs are being met, or should be met, because this automatically sounds like it's a consumerist concern, "When are my needs going to be met? When am I going to be fed?"
What is communicated by this is that, outside of the church, Christians should be practicing self-sufficiency. They should solve their own problems, work out their own issues, manage their own conflicts, so that when they show up to church, they can either A. just get along, or B. be so unattached from the personal process of church that they can simply participate and serve without any emotional or personal issues getting in the way.
I suspect that that's stating another extreme, but I don't see moderate positions stated. There probably should be a moderate position, but I'm not sure what it is.
I do see small groups pushed around a lot, and perhaps there's a sense that while what happens Sunday morning isn't about you, what happens during the week in your small group could, at some length, be about you.
But small groups, more often than not, tend to once again take on a certain format or identity, formed by the leader, or the majority of the participants. If you can't identify with the majority of the participants in viewpoint, your ability to actually have your needs met may be limited to the portions of your identity which share Venn diagram space with the other members.
Conflict, after all, exists at least partially because, not being telepathic, none of us can actually see into each other's heads, so a fair portion of our language usage is misconstrued. We think that we know what the other person is saying, and why, but we're often wrong, and are working off of subjective non-linear contexts which don't overlap.
Still, the question remains. What kind of needs are you allowed to have as a Christian that you may be able to expect some sort of interaction on? And if they aren't being met...if you're lonely, or feeling left out despite your best efforts, or it's being subtly communicated that if you'd just be more extroverted, everything would work itself out...is this valid for church?
What might be a better question is, what kind of community is church, or should it be?
At some level, church is something that you do on a weekly basis which you show up for, and perform a number of prescribed activities, and then you go home and live your life. One hopes that the way you live your life would be different because of activities and processes you undertake which birth from the church process, but church itself may not be the place for all of the things you are throughout the week.
Certainly, there is a concept that you should be able to truly be yourself when you are at church, and not pretend to be better off than you are (sleeping on a star), or having a better time, or handling the interstitial issues of life. You should be able to say that life is currently sucking intensely, and that you're not really managing, or you're doing well and it's great, or whatever, and that shouldn't be an issue.
But at the same time, if you say life sucks, you have to accept that people are going to pray for you that everything would be perfect, and that Charlie Brown would bring you flowers, and that unicorns would dance around you and that puppies would tumble into your life, and everything will be the BEST TIME EVER, and you'll just have to smile and nod, whether or not that has any bearing on your life, because, you know, they mean well, and this is a run-on sentence.
WE need language, useful language, about what is allowed, about needs that we're allowed to have, about what part of church is about us, or for us. I understand, there's a lot of navel gazing and self obsession in the church, as anywhere else.
But boundaries require both positive and negative definition, or it will always be unhealthy. So how do we start?