« Calling all fathers: Save the girls | Main | Religion's Generation Gap »

Mar 05, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dana Ames

Yes and yes :)
Dana

RPS

Not sure I can comment cogently -- I'm behind in this book (the trials of being in two book studies at the same time when I'm the lead in one of them!)

But part of me is asking, "Well, duh...?" Of course this all makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the HUGE separation between all Stevens is saying (and what I'd expect a lot of people, clergy and laity) would agree with... and the ACTUAL ways we continue to plod along as if we really don't (not deep down) believe it.

And I think that some of what Dave Moody was getting at in the C2 post comes into play here. Perhaps the question isn't so much what Stevens is positing, but why we aren't somehow translating that into the "kinectic"? I don't know... and may contradict myself when I catch up -- sorry for posting without actually doing the work!

RPS

Michael Kruse

RPS, my take is that there are multiple reasons. First, institutions of the past have built an alternate reality that is not the Church as God would have it. It is a paradigm; a set of mutually reinforcing assumptions and realities that is not easily dissected and deconstructed. It is like being an American and reading up on China versus flying to China a living there a few months. Reading about it generates some head knowledge. When you actually go to China you come to really KNOW China and see your own culture in a different light. Something is wrong and we know need to change to something else, but we haven’t “been to China” so we can’t clearly see another paradigm. Therefore, as human beings always do, we continually fall back into the patterns we have always known.

Second, change will require enormous amounts of work for both “clergy” and “laity,” and to be honest, I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Christians want to work at it that hard. It is perceived as high order commitment for unclear benefits and high risk of failure.

Third, there are people (many very well meaning) who are heavily invested in the status quo. They have developed very elaborate and effective tools to prevent them from seeing the challenges in front of them.

Fourth, we are talking about a decentralized, organizationally minimal, new model trying to replace entrenched models and with high degrees of organization. It is almost like we need to organize in order to achieve less organizational overhead. Organizing to do that runs the risk of simply becoming a new organization replacing the old.

Those are just some off the cuff thoughts. Anyone else have ideas?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Kruse Kronicle on Kindle

Check It Out

Categories