After 57 years in ministry plus 42 years in psychology, I am more convinced than ever that one of the most critical issues for social and personal cohesion is identity. Knowing who I am, where I fit in to my social group, where I’m heading with my life, my relationships with family and others, the values I hold and live by, all go towards defining the person I am at any particular time, as well as my ongoing developmental journey. The moment I lose consciousness of my interrelatedness and the humility that must go with that awareness, I begin to form an identity that is unhealthy. The moment I became overly-concerned about my own future and well-being, I begin to develop identity anxiety.
So it is with the institution called church. It is difficult to operate anywhere within Christian church circles without experiencing the angst contained in the depressive, anxious-ridden meetings about relevance and survival. There seems to be a never-ending focus on navel gazing and fretting about what the future holds for the church. Not that many of the people involved in the process would admit that, or even be aware of the depth of the anxiety. It is hidden inside such positive, jargon-loaded concepts as, Fresh Expressions of Ministry, Messy Church, Pirate Church, Revitalising Congregations for Mission etc. even though many of these concepts are revisiting ideas that were operating many decades ago.
In the Uniting Church NSW/ACT Synod documents, there is a comprehensive statement entitled, God’s Mission and the Church, that outlines a theological rationale for the unstopable work of God’s renewing spirit in the world. Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with the nature of God and the statements that revolve around that concept, the statement is consistent within itself. What is fascinating, to me, is that the rest of the document not only picks up the responsibility of Uniting Church people to participate in that divine work, but goes on to delve into the various strategies that will enable the success of the ‘unstoppable’ work. The paradox is apparently lost on the authors of the document.
Time and time again churches, such as the Uniting Church, develop more and more strategies, funding initiatives and employment of key personnel, that will take hopefully church communities into glorious new directions of success. It never seems to occur to anyone to stop and ask the question, “Does anyone want us here in the first place?” What does it feel like for those outside of the church community to hear that mission is being taken to them?” As the sergeant in Hill Street Blues used to say before the officers went out on the streets, “let’s do it to them, before they do it to us!”
A general reading of many church mission documents reveals a number of issues and assumptiuons that go to the heart of the declining churches. One is the assumption of relevance. What if the Christian church in any form has no relevance? Most mission planning experiences I have attended over many decades begin with questions such as, “What we can do to be more relevant?” or “How do we share the Christian message?” Rarely are questions asked about why we are even having such a planning experience in the first place.
Perhaps, the whole notion of mission to the world is just a rehashing of a dominant, colonial attitude, such as emerged out of the Evangelical Revival of the late 18th century? That is, we who have the message of hope, take our message to you who are not one of us, so that you may be converted to our message. The famous LMS missionary, John Williams, was famous for sailing back into port with the idols of converted ‘heathens’ hanging from the mast of his ship. Much 18th and 19th century missionary activity dovetailed all to uncomfortably with capitalist ventures that diminished local populations. Not surprisingly, the residual resentment from such enterprises lingers today.
It seems particularly pertinent that Jesus never constructed an institution. He challenged his own Jewish tradition and institutional forms. He sent people out in poverty and humility to share a message of justice, love and truth, with no command to establish an institutional church. What would have happened historically if those who followed that message lived out the message in their daily lives witghout an institution? What if they continued to meet for support in homes? What if the faith community following Jesus had not degenerated into dogmatic, theological debates and councils to determine orthodoxy and heresy? What if there had not been a separation between Synagogue and the followers of Jesus? What if Constantine had not given Christians the authority of the Roman Empire? Now, before you accuse me of being naïve, I am simply raising provocative questions for the sake of exploring the essence of the Jesus story.
One of the possible results of such an exploration is to borrow a psychological concept that states, “All groups and institutions are inherently dysfunctional”. In psychology, that leads to a constant challenging of institutions – including the psychologists’ own professiononal Institutions – and sustaining the value that there is no such thing as a foolish question. If church institutions accepted this challenge, it would change the language around mission and the nature of church identity. No longer would you hear phrases such as, ‘declining church attendance’ or ‘struggles for financial viability’ or the ‘lack of ordained ministers’ or the myriad of other irrelevant statements that emerge from such dysfunctional discussions.
Perhaps when people decide to simply live out the faith and challenges Jesus presented, a better world would emerge through changed relationships, challenges to abuse, upholding of the rights of the poor, a dominance of love over hate and a sharing of resources over against the manipulation of corrupt capitalism. Would we then live beyond religious, dogmatic formulations and pride and find ourselves living in ambiguous, challenging questioning, non-institutionalised sharing communities?
psychology and hope 