The longing to belong is innate in us, part of our very nature.

Irish philosopher, John O’Donohue writes:

"the hunger to belong is at the heart of our nature. Cut off from others, we atrophy and turn in on ourselves. Mostly, we do not need to make an issue of belonging: when we belong, we take it for granted. Merely to be excluded or to sense rejection hurts. When we become isolated, we are prone to being damaged; our minds lose their flexibility and natural kindness. We become vulnerable to fear and negativity. A sense of belonging, however, suggest warmth, understanding, embrace. The ancient and eternal values of human life - truth, unity, goodness, justice, beauty and love - are all statements of true belonging.

Our hunger to belong is the longing to bridge the gulf that exists between isolation and intimacy. Distance awakens longing; closeness is belonging. Everyone longs for intimacy and dreams of a nest of belonging in which one is embraced, seen and loved. Something within each of us cries out for belonging. We can have all the world has to offer in terms of status, achievement and possession, yet without a true sense of belonging, our lives feel empty and pointless. Like the trees that puts roots deep into the clay, each of us needs the anchor of belonging in order to bend with the storms and continue toward the light." [1]

As John O’Donohue elicits: the longing to belong is deeply ingrained; yet it is only superficially recognised and understood. It is precisely this mix which makes it something vulnerable, open to abuse, a factor highly relevant, I feel, to an increasing number of people at this point in our history, in Britain and the western world, generally.

…

C.S. Lewis, in his book, ‘Beyond Personality,’ observed the following phenomena:

"You know that among human beings, when they get together in a family, or a club, or a trades union, people talk about the ‘spirit’ of that family, or club, or trades union. They talk about its ‘spirit’ because the individual members, when they’re together, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving which they wouldn’t have if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence…!

Tom Marshall wrote, similarly, about the corporate spirit, in his book, Explaining Principalities and Powers, as a vital-to-understand aspect of society and community:

"A city (or a company or an institution) is created by and lives through, the corporate decisions of men and women, each of whom has a human spirit. When this corporate entity begins to function as such, there eventually comes into being a corporate spirit that embodies the character or personality of the organisation and gives it its individuality and distinctiveness. This corporate spirit or persona becomes a created reality in its own right."

Marshall then goes on to explain several key features of the corporate or institutional spirit:

• ž "although created by its founders the institution goes on to become independent of them."
• ž "although its character is originally malleable and able to be shaped, the corporate spirit becomes increasingly set in its ways and resistant to change"
• ž "originally created to serve the people, the institution ends up using the people to serve its own ends"
• ž "sooner or later, the institution’s predominant instinct becomes its own survival"

Whether the institution being considered is a city, a corporation, a business, an association, political party, club or a church, the institution’s influence comes to demand loyalty and commitment and obedience and to reward those who serve it well with a share of power and influence.

The institution, thus considered, is "fallen" - corrupted - capable of doing good things, but also of doing, or allowing, evil to take place within it bounds. It has legitimate, even laudable goals, but those goals are perverted over time, taking in sinful and illegitimate goals and out-workings. Occasionally, evil factors become so accepted that they are institutionalised, though this is rare.

More subtle, but more normal, is the institutions drive to become idolatrous - in the sense that it strives to be the ultimate defining value in people’s lives, the ultimate source of allegiance: it claims ultimate authority over them. At key moments, it requires its interests to come before family, before personal interests, before health, before God.

Institutionalised evil or idolatry, in this way, opens the door to demonisation. Nevertheless, the institution, like an individual, writes Marshall, "is not to be rejected and not to be abandoned. Firstly, because it is the object of redemption, secondly, because restored and transformed it is required for the service of God in the age to come."

What do these extracts have to do with each other and with us?

It should not be too difficult to see how the "longing to belong" which O’Donohue identifies as being innate to all is easily taken advantage of by institutions and institutional spirits. Our desire to belong sends us open-hearted into the embrace of an institution whose power and character is deeper, more subtle and far more ‘embracing’ than we anticipated…

… People are consumed by their employment, families fall apart; cities tempt people into a perversion of life that they would never otherwise consider; political parties demand allegiance at the expense of conscience and leaders are slowly corrupted; churches, intent on growing strongly and swiftly, subtly confuse allegiance toward God with allegiance towards the institution and believers instinctively sense they are being manipulated… that is the world in which many of us have grown into adulthood and in which we now find ourselves being propelled towards middle age.

Something within may have told us that all was not truly well amidst this whole process, but the grim insistence of "the institution" has all too often been allowed to reassure our waning conscience, which was, in fact, attempting to alert us to the need to seek for a deeper discernment about the nature of the reality of which we were being confronted.

Let’s examine the issue with regard to "church" more closely. The ‘longing to belong’ makes church a place of potential intimacy and acceptance, which initially draws us in quite deeply. For long periods it may serve that purpose and we are undisturbed by its failures, much like we would overlook them within a family environment (as long as they remain within reasonable limits).

Yet, unlike work environments, which are governed by an employment contract, or club or political membership, with its clearly defined mission and purpose, church is an environment that is frequently, consciously, (deliberately?), undefined. This is most frequently because it is widely assumed that we all understand what "church" is and does (or at least, we assume the leaders understand these things), but, in fact, unless it has been articulated clearly exactly what the values and strategies and expectations of this particular local church institution are (which we find ourselves belonging to in some way), then we are not intentionally involved, rather we have unconsciously drifted into involvement: we ourselves are not determining our involvement; it is being determined for us by the character and power of the institution. Our longing to belong continues to draw us in, our involvement with like-minded people buoys us along and yet the hunger for reality, for genuine intimacy frequently continues to gnaw away within us.

As long as the clear substance of "what church really is" remains undefined, then, inevitably, our relationship with the institutional aspect of church becomes undefined and potentially highly uncomfortable. Those in the Pentecostal-charismatic wing of the church are particularly prone to this conflict because of the unspoken assumption that the church is free of institutional aspects, which it only associates with the "traditional" denominations.

My contention is that, whilst the church-as-an-institution may have a legitimate role to play,[2] it must not be confused with the church-as-a-community. Successful institutions, in all spheres of human activity, will be found to always have a strong underlying community underpinning them, forming a matrix linking together the structural elements. Without friendships, relationships and allegiances holding things together - for good or ill - an institution can hardly function dynamically. Similarly, leadership must be more than a title or an office or an ability to make structural changes, rather they will be characterised by an attitude, an action, something real which affects the way people interact and behave.[3]

Membership of the Church, however - as in the global community defined by allegiance to the Messiah, Jesus Christ - is different, unlike membership of any other group. It is a spiritual membership, defined by faith. It is an invisible membership, experienced, understood, determined only by faith, the head of which is Christ, who requires absolute allegiance to himself alone, in all aspects of an individuals life.

Membership of a local church, by contrast, is no different to membership of any other human institution, which can be seen, measured, identified, with specific geographical boundaries, working practices and cultural habits, the head of which is a human personality or group of personalities. Allegiance to this body, this particular institution is not implied by membership of the global church. People are allowed to freely choose their membership - and manipulation should never the weapon with which that choice is engendered.

It is, of course, possible to interact with the community of a local church, without being a member of the institution. Whilst members of staff must understandably belong to it and whilst there may be a quorum of membership which aids in the goals and activities of the institution, for whom membership is an appropriate involvement, the same is not true of, nor incumbent upon, the general community: for them membership is not an obvious requirement in order to engage in communal activity.

Moreover, some people find their membership of the global, invisible church a more defining membership than local church membership - they network with people - and they serve - widely, on an inter-regional level that is more significant to them personally than involvement with the local church, but no less potent or engaging - and no less "community."

Still others find that their most significant sphere of service is within the ‘secular’ community, the workplace or the family and to be required to be members of a local church institution - with significant implicit requirements for service - is an additional weight that is not appropriate for them.

Understanding these differences helps to identify and understand some of the tensions which arise within the local church setting when a church institution begins to require a level of commitment that goes beyond the level to which the conscience of an individual informs that person they should go.

"Fuzzy edges" is a term some have introduced to interpret the need for recognising that people interact with local church in different ways and that allowing people to follow their own conscience and creativity ultimately allows people to discover their own gifts, abilities and reliance upon God and aids the formation of a strong, free, authentic, Christian community.

A responsible and strong pastoral leadership seeks to build that kind of a community. Such a genuine, strong community will interact and relate in ways greater, deeper and wider than could ever be orchestrated by a leadership - and will do so well beyond church membership boundaries. Leadership’s role in this is to facilitate the growth of strong, loving community, certainly not to control its every move.

However, when a leadership is failing to accomplish this kind of growth, failing to inspire real community, based upon godly love, affection and a sense of belonging between members, then it is frequently tempted to take advantage of the individual’s sense of loyalty towards God and towards his people as a method of engendering loyalty toward the church-as-an-institution, as Tom Marshall warns. Within such a scenario, lack of definition and understanding of the distinction between church-as-institution and church-as-community becomes an asset to the insecure, controlling leader. Those who seek from them, or the group, a clarification of the inevitable question: "Is it possible to retain our belonging to the community, without formal membership?" (with all the implicit demands that brings), are treated with suspicion. If they do not respond to the initial brushing aside of the issue, those questioners risk being seen as a threat. Disenfranchisement is the ultimate threat usually wielded in response. It is a rare leadership which is able to stop in its tracks and recognise its own failings, at such a point, in yielding the church to the grip of the institutional spirit.

This leaves the believer or family which "longs to belong" between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place.’ The temptation is to identify the cynicism underlying the institutional spirit and behaviour and to answer it with criticism and, when that fails, to take harbour in overt or covert cynicism towards the institution. This eventually thrusts the believer out into a desert devoid of grace - as I wrote about in the earlier parabolic article "a narrow path that leads to life."

What, then, is ‘the narrow road towards life,’ which avoids both the ‘bog of compliancy’ (with the institutions’ agendas) and ‘the desert of cynicism’ (toward the institutions’ agenda)? How does one find ‘life’ when one is seeking the heavenly manna of belonging to a real, vital, authentic Christian community, yet finding oneself offered only the institutional food of formal membership, seemingly devoid of vitality?

A paper entitled, "The New St Benedict" [4] endeavours to succour twenty-first century, post-modern believers with advice that it believes St Benedict [5] would say to them, if he could speak to them…

"The good news is that we are capable of change. Like our fellow humans who encountered Jesus during his life we also can be healed. Our lives can also be transformed. We too can adopt new values. We too can live in new ways. That is why the Christian message is called gospel, which means good news.

"This great change, this conversion, is a journey we can take only by deciding to do so… This is a journey that takes a lifetime. Also like all journeys this one is made in company with others. If we attempt to make it alone we will soon run out of food, and at night there will be no one to watch while we sleep. When we fall there will be no one to lift us up. When we become discouraged there will be no one to raise our spirits, and when we become lost there will be no one to point the way. To embark together on this great journey is the whole purpose of intentional Christian community. To have been given the opportunity to make it is the greatest gift anyone can receive."

This again, suggests to us that community is not a choice that we can avoid. Rather it is an inevitable, challenging journey that needs to be undertaken. Our ‘longing to belong’ will refuse to leave us isolated. Isolation will only swell our longing until we determine to make the journey along the narrow path that leads to life - or to sell out our longing for the alternative of a form of community which comes at the price of compliancy with an institutional agenda and, thus, of our freedom of conscience, our individuality, our liberty, ultimately, of our personal destinies.

The ‘New St Benedict’ continues…

"When we were created we were endowed with enormous potential, of many different kinds. It is God who gives each person this potential, and it is God’s greatest desire that we realize this potential, that we Become the persons God has created us to be.

Whatever our condition we always have available to us important new potentials, which are waiting to be acted on. Very often we are unaware of these potentials, and as a result we become discouraged by our weakness. But we are weak only because we have not yet accepted the potential God has given us. It is only by accepting these gifts that we become truly God’s children, in the way that God has intended us to be. It is by becoming whole persons that we become holy persons.

When we follow Christ we become what we are created to be, and our defects gradually disappear, for our defects are the result of ignoring our potential. There is only one defect that is truly fatal, and that is the failure to live out the potential given us in creation.."

Thus, it seems we have a choice:

1. to ignore our sense of belonging - yet that only increases our innate longing;
2. to compromise our sense of belonging - embracing the institution as an alternative to genuine Christian community;
3. to embrace our sense of belonging - and seek those with whom we feel we belong and to begin a journey towards authentic, Christian community…

St Benedict again…

"One of the greatest potentials we have been given is our capacity to live in community, and it is only by accepting this gift and living it out that we become fully human and fully Christian. But to become a whole person we must choose to live in a community which exists to empower its members, to make them whole.

Such communities must be formed intentionally, for virtually all existing communities are founded on the assumption that human communities can only succeed by placing the community’s needs ahead of its individual members’ needs, and by forcing dissidents to conform.

That assumption is based on a certain realism, for when communities are made up of people who are acting only in their self interest constant coercion is required to keep these communities from disintegrating into chaos.

But by making conversion and prayer central to your lives you have the capacity to create entirely new kinds of communities-communities which exist to empower and free their members. That is the kind of community Christ created, and by following Christ without compromise you can do the same."

If ‘Benedict’ is right, then he appears to confirm what O’Donohue intimated: the capacity to live in community is the pathway to becoming fully human, fully Christian. Moreover, a Christian community must exist to empower its membership, to make them whole and it is when we find this reality denied to us by the institution, which seeks to be served, rather than to serve, that we feel our humanity, our Christianity, our conscience is being compromised. The church institution that so acts has become worldly - following the path of fallen nature - and is in need of redemption and renewal itself.

‘Benedict’ suggests Christ instituted an alternative kind of community, towards which he still beckons us today. It is toward that which our sense of belonging, our longing to belong draws us onwards.

Epilogue

What are the practical concerns towards which this meditation points us?

• Many, perhaps most, people will continue belonging to the church-as-an-institution, without compromising themselves or their consciences. They will continue to be instruments of renewal and revitalisation whatever path the institution takes. They have the inner liberty to resist ‘enslavement’ to the institutional spirit and are contented with the level of community interaction offered by this arrangement.

• Others will continue to feel ‘enslaved’ or, at least, highly compromised, yet find themselves unable to take the risk of leaving behind institutional forms of church. Still others will reject institutional Christianity altogether. Both these latter groups will have embraced a deep form of cynicism which will continue to undermine their inner liberty and their humanity.

• žA few will decide that the call of church-as-a-community is to be pursued in a new way - without the trappings of institution. That it is worth breaking out of comfortable patterns and routines and safe harbours to undertake a journey to discover authentic Christian community, with all of its risks, all of its ups and downs.

I am convinced that this does not imply the institution of another church, rather, it is a calling to a way of living, a way of life - indeed, it is a way of coming alive! - a way of interacting which fully embraces both personal liberty and service towards God and towards our neighbour.

A narrow path, yes, but one that leads to life.

John - john@eternalpurpose.org.uk

[1] John O’Donohue, Eternal Echoes: exploring our hunger to belong, Bantam Press, 1998

[2] the legitimacy of church-as-an-organisation depends upon how it identifies its mission / purpose and whether its structure and practice accurately reflects that mission.

^[3] John Adair, on leadership: "There has to be an elusive personal quality. A good leader gives direction and drive, sets an example, shares danger and risk on a equal footing, wins willing support, wins respect without courting popularity, calls out form within people their own strength, ability, endurance, understand the two way personal links in the chain of command, is a good follower."

[4] by Ivan Kauffman; available for download from http://www.newmonasticism.org/writings/index.html,
or directly at http://www.newmonasticism.org/nm_docs/NewSaintBenedict.pdf;
see also Christianity Today article on New Monasticism, at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/009/16.38.html

[5] Benedict launched the highly effective Benedictine monastic movement which greatly impacted the first millennium