Hmm, Maybe 'Belonging'...?

Well, here's the next post on the current train of thoughts about the old classic phrase of believing, belonging and behaving (constructed in whichever order you want).

Last time around I put together some thoughts on the old paradigm of first confronting people with beliefs. If you read that post you'd know that I suggest we find ourselves in something of a paradox with regard to beliefs. Having beliefs as a starting point can be deeply problematic in our polysemic, polymorphic world, especially when beliefs are held and espoused rigidly and dogmatically. On the other hand, we all hold beliefs, whether we accept it or not. One cannot operate as a human being without believing that certain things are true (murder is wrong, education is worthwhile, a red light means stop, etc). We neglect conversing about beliefs at our peril.

So given the ambiguity about engaging over beliefs, what about connecting through 'belonging' to eachother and to a community beyond?

I receive a monthly email from Urban Expression as an Urban Expression Associate, in which there has been a few comments about the Alpha course, whether it works still and looking at alternatives. Alpha offers a hybrid belonging-believing environment - you study a course about (theological) beliefs, but with a consistent group of people to whom you belong. It seems that many people are saying things like ‘Alpha is not answering the questions people are asking’ or ‘Alpha doesn’t work in the way it did a few years ago’. To quote the email, 'evidence is accumulating that it is becoming less effective in a context where people know less of Christianity and are asking different questions from those Alpha tries to answer – and that alternative courses or approaches will be needed.'

Much of the emerging church seems to have adopted a belonging-before-believing apporach. Connections are made through the matrix of friendships and relationships that exist in an intentional community of people. 'Outsiders' are accepted, loved, respected, trusted, and made to feel welcome, wanted, and needed without demands being made. Creating the environment and giving space and time allows people to feel that they belong, 'outsiders' can feel like 'insiders' whether they would call themselves that or not.

Whereas a 'believing first' faith community would have a clear boundary around their set to define who is 'in' and who is 'out', the boundaries of a 'belonging first' community are fuzzy and undefined/undefinable. Questions and challenges about beliefs are explored within the context of belonging that rests on mutuality, trust and respect.

I find this an attractive position and helpful in many ways.

But I have a few niggling questions about it …

• What's different?
  I just can't quite work out what this paradigm is suggesting that is not a description of how things actually are. Everyone knows that shouting in someone's face that they must believe and be baptised is not going to achieve anything other than a black eye. Isn't it just obvious that we need to trust and respect other people in order to be trusted and respected enough to engage with eachother about our beliefs?

  As I said before, if I am going to expect anyone to risk themselves enough to alter the way they understand the world as a result of our encounter, if i want my friend to be willing to be convinced by anything I have to say, I also must be willing to risk myself, to be open to being convinced by what my friend has to say.

• Now what...?
  So I belong to your community - now what? Is there maybe a danger that by being so focussed on belonging we postpone, maybe even permanently, the potential for transformation. I guess I 'm anxious that eagerness to create an accepting environment results in the circumstances and conditions for personal, interpersonal and communal change and growth are suspended.

  Community life must provide the context of productive conflict, a place in which we can encourage eachother to confront alternative views of the world and appropriate them as our own (in the Ricouerean sense! i.e. it is not the 'words' of the conflict/alternative view/text that transforms but the reflection/interpretation/impact of those 'words' that transform). We must live in a hermeneutic community in which we share and collectively own the interpretation of the world, encouraging eachother to engage and reflect so that we may each be left freer, and, if possible, a little happier.

• Same old same old?
  Isn't the ultimate aim of creating a 'belonging first' environment to push people slowly but surely towards the same old confrontation over beliefs? Is this not just the iron fist of traditional mission in the velvet glove of post-modernity?

  Hmm.

In summary then, I think 'believing first' encounters probably won't get us very far anymore. But I'm not sure that working on a premise of 'belonging first' will get us much further. No rethinking is necessary, just a restructuring, and that seems to me to be empty, shallow, uncourageous and completely misunderstanding the issues.

There is no doubt that engaging with eachother, if it is going to be valuable, must be done in a context of mutual affection, trust and respect. We must feel like we belong - in a family, a church, in an academic institution, a club, whatever - if we're going to be able to grow and mature. Obviously.

But how are we ever going to become the kind of person we really want to be?