My friend, Steve Bogner, over at Catholicism, Holiness, and Spirituality, raises the issue of the importance of ritual in maintaining our joy, creativity, and spirituality. Those of us who seek to “de-institutionalize” church must wrestle with the importance of ritual and how to create it within our contexts.
First, I quote from Steve:
Why have we lost joy, why are we jaded, what are our rituals? Those are great questions. As I read blogs and various other publications I see a lack of joy and a lot of jaded talk in many of them. As I travel around the country, I definitely see a lack of joy, and lots of jaded behavior. I think traveling brings out the worst in many people. And rituals? Who has time for them!?
And so I wonder about all this lack of joy, creativity, rituals and so on. I wonder about our collective cyncisim, jadedness (is that a word?). And to me, it seems to all point back to a lack of holiness & spirituality. It seems to me that true holiness and a living spirituality naturally bring joy to our souls that radiates out to affect those around us. It brings hope, optimism and love. Ritual plays an important role in all this too – it can provide a rich environment for all this to grow and develop. The ritual of Mass and a good liturgy does a lot in reinforcing/building my spirituality. Of course, good liturgy has a lot of subjective criteria. What’s good for me might not be good for you.
Ritual, as well as what Dallas Willard would call “disciplines”, are building blocks for living truly spiritual and creative Kingdom lives. Without this (I agree with Steve) we will end up without joy or delight. Yet many of us have seen certain rituals become empty shells and disciplines become guilt-driven enslavement. As Steve said, this is very subjective. One ritual might be life-giving for one and death-producing for another.
All of which brings us to the question of how our non-institutionalized communities can create ritual that is life-giving and spirituality-promoting.
Believe me, I have more questions than answers on this point. I do know that we need to remain fluid. The value of simple/organic communities is that ritual can be quickly developed and just as quickly discarded for something new. We therefore have the opportunity to try to develop “right now” rituals that meet the needs of those involved– right now. In a sense, like everything else, this becomes a community project as the collective group can define together what rituals will be life-giving for the present season of their lives.
I can see the value of taking the time to look at our existing rituals: when we gather, what we do when we gather, what we don’t do. Then, since rituals go beyond “the service”, I can also see us discussing how we interact with God and each other throughout the week, month, and year. This includes topics such as small group gatherings, prayer meetings of many different sorts, retreats, etc., etc. The point is to allow the community to begin to wrestle with what is collectively life-giving and then structure, yes, structure, these things into our community life.
For me, de-institutionalizing church does not mean the absence of structure. That’s not possible! But it does mean developing structures and rituals that support life right now, and then being willing to carry on discussions so that structures can change as needs and opportunities change.
I see this topic as needing to be regularly introduced for discussion in our church family gatherings.
Comments
12 responses to “Creating Rituals Without Institutionalizing”
Hi Roger – Interesting thoughts here. Promoting rituals and structure while avoiding institutionalzing them is going to be difficult. I wouldn’t say institutions are naturally bad, though they can be. But a good institution is a great force within a church (or any group of people).
Maybe the trick is to let the rituals & structure drive the institution, not vice versa. If you look at the enormous institution of the Catholic church, one could say it developed from the codification of rituals and faith. We Catholics call it Tradition. What we sometimes forget is that Tradition changes through time – driven by changes in ritual in many cases. The church you see now isn’t like the church 1,000 or 500 or even 100 years ago.
Sometimes I get the feeling that Emerging Church (a catch-all term, I know) avoids institutionalizing because of a fear of bad institutions. And I don’t see how you can have ritual & structure without eventually getting an institution. Maybe the answer then is in the design of the institution – a design that makes it naturally driven by the community’s structure & rituals.
“No doubt some will reply that God is not a God of disorder, incoherence, or arbitrariness, but a God of order. Of course he is. Unfortunately the whole of the Old Testament shows us that God’s order is not that which we conceive and desire. God’s order is not organization and institution (cf. the difference between judges and kings). It is not the same in every time and place. It is not a matter of repetition and habit. On the contrary, it resides in the fact that it constantly posits something new, a new beginning. Our God is a God of beginnings. There is in him no redundancy or circularity. Thus, if his church wants to be faithful to his revelation, it will be completely mobile, fluid, renascent, bubbling, creative, inventive, adventurous, and imaginative. It will never be perennial, and can never be organized or institutionalized. If the gates of death are not going to prevail against it, this is not because it is a good, solid, well-organized fortress, but because it is alive; it is Life-that is, as mobile, changing, and surprising as life. If it becomes a powerful fortified organization, it is because death has prevailed.” (Jacques Ellul Subversiveness of Christianity)
I am trying to get my head around house church/simple church and ritual and institution….. and it doesn’t work. The biblical mandate for getting to together is two fold… To edify one another and to encourage one another to good works. And we do that by every member getting involved. One person has a song, one has a tongue, one has a revelation.. one has a testimony or whatever the Lord has laid on someone’s heart… TO EDIFY ONE ANOTHER. Steve is bang on when he says that you cannot have ritual without it being institutional. Institutions have a life of their own… we end up serving institutions. Our gifts then have to be molded around the needs of the institution….. It always happens that way. To introduce ritual to home churches is to invite a whole slew of arguments about what rituals we are going to have and what we are not going to have. God did not get rid rid of the temple system so we could re-invent new ones that look somewhat like the old one.
As for structure Simson says that the church has had a maximum of organization and a minimum of organic/relational reality. The church needs to turn this around…
I agree whole heartedly with Steve and Frank. I feel that people by their nature have a tendency to look at what “worked” yesterday and apply it today. We easily rely on the past instead of looking to God for the future. We need to look to God for the next step. I feel this is how God maintains “ownership” of a movement. If we begin to rely on rituals then we begin to “own” the program and “know” how it should be done. Personally I am lazy I would rather have a set of ritual that work and not have to put the time in on my knees, but then it would be just that, a set of rituals.
I have really become excited about the house church movement and I have a question.
Should you try to lead a movement of God or will it become “infectious” as God spreads His vision among His people?
Good Discussion. I’m experiencing some confusion which I think is coming from (possibly my own) misunderstanding of the word “ritual.” I’m wondering if some of it doesn’t have to do with differing religious backgrounds and thus different connotations around this word.
I look the word up and see that it can mean: “the prescribed order of a religious ceremony.” Using this meaning (and maybe it is the only proper meaning of the word), I totally agree with Frank that there is no room in simple churches for ritual.
On the other hand, can “ritual” more simply mean “a ceremonial routine” (as per one definition), and can this meaning be a positive, if it is fluid and constantly changing to meet the needs of those involved.
Let me offer this example. When I leave the house in the morning (if my wife is still at home), I routinely (ritually?) give her a kiss before I go. This act is not robotic, it has meaning even though it is fairly routine.
Looking at the house church context, isn’t having a regular time and place to gather a ritual of sorts? Even if it changes locations and times from time to time? Is “ritual” the wrong term for this or just a difficult word because it has so much baggage around it? Are rituals actually a necessary part of all parts of life that we need to be aware of so that we engage in creating routines that are meaningful and also that are fluid and changing.
Humans, living in the world, live somewhat by routines (rituals?) even as we seek to live fully Kingdom lives. Some of the routines are death; some are life; and probably all good ones need to be constantly examined.
Out of my own desire, I have a routine yet fluid daily pursuit of God that involves certain expressions of prayer, worship, meditation, etc. None of these are performed ritualistically in the sense of a prescribed order, nor are they performed out of duty. Yet, because of my ardent desire for a fuller relationship with the Beloved, and because of the necessities of life, I have a fairly regular, yet fluid “routine” in terms of when I take time, where I go, and even somewhat what I do. Is this a ritual or something else? Does it need to stay free of becoming an empty presribed duty? Absolutely.
I guess what I am getting at is this:
Any type of church that gathers in any format will have “routine” of some kind even if it’s the “routine” of having no plan but spontaneity.
My concern is that we will stay fully aware as to what those routines or rituals are and look at them honestly and regularly so that we continually change and re-create our routines, or even routine lack-of-routine so that they remain fluid and life-giving.
If we pretend that we have no routines or rituals we may be in danger of institutionalizing whatever it is we are doing without being fully aware that that is what we are doing. There is more danger in this because, in our denial, we will not examine our unseen routines and thus remain stuck in them.
Having said all of that, I am still acknowledging that the use of the word “ritual” may not be the best. If this is so… someone help me with the vocabulary here. (And let me know if this is making any sense).
Roger
Note to Aaron.
In my opinion, if you try to lead a movement, get ready to get run over!
If you establish ritual (routines) are you in essence setting up a system that will “lead” the group.
I understand where you are coming from in regards to yourself and the routine that God is working in you, but I see the danger in the “next generation” that will want to follow your example. The example must be “SEEK GOD” not follw my routine.
I do not think that deciding to meet once a week is moving towards structure or ritual. We meet on Sunday at 11 because it works out best for all of us….. but we hold it loosely. If more than half our group can’t make it that Sunday we can cancel (and we have), go out for breakfast at a restaurant, do something together (have a picnic in the park) or whatever we decide…. and that includes still meet. If we go to see the “Passion” together on Saturday night we do not usually get together the next day…. but we can. In this way the meetings are our servants not our masters. We have a meal together. We have good times of catching up…… at some point we make room for people to share what is on their heart in the form of a song, a poem, a story, an encouragement, a teaching, scripture…..it is pretty wide open. This Sunday we started off with a discussion of what was sacred and what was secular…… But again we hold these things loosely. It is also amazing how people, because of former ritual and structure, cannot lay hold of this kind of meeting together. The addiction to it is almost like the addiction to drugs. There is a greater commitment of love towards each other when each one is thinking and praying about what to bring each for encouragement. Otherwise we can let the pastor or priest or the ritual do it for us. The primary purpose of getting together is “one another.” In most services or the mass the emphasis is not “one another” You are relating to a man (the sermonizer) or to the ritual. We need to hold before us that simple church is about the “one anothers”/ relationships… with Jesus as the center. The only temple remaining is the human heart. We are the Temple.
There are too many problems that that come along with rituals… this will have to be for another day……
And kissing your wife every morning is probably more organic than you think.
Here is an article and a way one group met for their meeting taken from “what is church”
http://www.whatischurch.com/sandbox/weblog.php
http://www.next-wave.org/feb03/sundaycentric.htm
I think what I am still trying to communicate is that routine, ritual, and structure is inevitable. It is not possible to live without it. Therefore, the important thing is to stay aware of what we are doing or even the non-structure will become a ritual that will eventually become a structure with no life. By staying aware, we can make sure that our routines and structures remain organic and fluid–changing and moving with the needs of God’s people led by the Spirit.
So you have to keep an awareness that the ritual/routine that does develop exists only to serve the people of God, not vice versa? Sounds like a great model to me.
RELIGION & THE 2004 ELECTION
There is a world super power, far greater than ours. Whether or not you’ve taken the time to realize it, or are wise enough to acknowledge it, there are two distinct powers watching over things. One is the force for good, and the other is a force for evil. Depending on the culture, nationality, and ethnicity, these forces are identified by a variety of names: Ganesha, Buda, Allah, or Lucifer, Satan, Belzabub…,you get the idea. In the eloquent words of Mohamad Ali,”rivers come in many names, but they’re all of the same water”. Most folks in the western world refer to the powers of good and evil, as “God” and the “Devil”, respectively; and the study, and/or worship of these deities, is referred to as “religion”. Many religions around the world, acknowledge the existence and significance of Jesus Christ, in varying degrees. In the western world, most of us credit him with sacrificing his life to pay for our sins, and consider him our lord and savior. This belief is called “Christianity”. Christianity comes in various forms, or denominations, ranging from the orthodox, to the occult. Members of these congregation have evolved into a wide array of followers, ranging from: fanatics, extremists, and radical fundamentalists, to fair-weather worshipers, hypocrites and pseudo-Christians. Organized gatherings of such peoples, are called churches. According to the Bible, church members are required to give 10% of their wealth to their church. These gifts, or charitable contributions, are biblically referred to as tithes. Originally, these financial contributions were used to maintain the warship facilities, and tend to the out-reach needs of the local community. Due to the initial “non-profit” stature of these churches, the government granted them “tax exempt” status. Modern technology and marketing techniques allowed church leaders to solicit, proselytize, or advertise to increasingly larger segments of the public. As congregations grew, so did church revenues. It wasn’t long before greed yielded it’s ugly head, and political theological corruption was born.
Throughout history, it’s been said and proven that “money is the root of all evil”, and so has been the case in the religious world. Collectively speaking, annual revenues of religious organizations runs in the billions of dollars. This vast, and largely unregulated wealth has spawned it’s own political power. Church hierarchies now retain government lobbyists to make sure that legislated policies remain in their favor, while they come up with new ways to raise even more capital. Some of these methods include tactics which range from unscrupulous to fraudulent. Among the largest culprits, are the TV evangelists, who “prey” (ha ha), on the life savings of the poor and in firmed. Their most effective tactic is to display a spectacle, consisting of payed talent, who pretend to be in firmed, and then are seemingly miraculously cured of their afflictions, merely at the touch or suggestion of the “faith healer”. Witnesses to such an extravaganza, then are urged, and feel compelled to donate generously, so that they too might be alleviated of whatever problems are ailing them. Several of these crooks have already been indicted in recent years: Jim Baker, Jim Whitington, and Jim Swaggart, to name just a few. I personally know of a case, where a 79 year old bed ridden widow, who was conned into surrendering the $3000/00 in her checking account, along with cashing a $50,000.00 savings bond that she had in the bank. This represented her entire lives savings, all for the promise that God would heal her. It left her nothing left to pay for her modest one room apartment, groceries, medication, or in-home nursing care. I was glad to see him do time, but it didn’t make up for the undo suffering, he put her, and her care givers through. God certainly does not approve of this deceptive thievery, and these people are not true Christians. They’re pseudo-Christians, and these evangelists are the type of people who are counseling our current President.
The political spectrum has divided itself into three categories: “Liberal/DEMOCRAT”(lenient, forward thinking) a.k.a.”the left”,
“Moderate”(flexible, not favoring either side)
a.k.a.” centrist/MODERATE”, and “Conservative/REPUBLICAN ”(strict, old fashioned) a.k.a.”The Right”. Because of thief moral stance on a couple lifestyle issuer, the Christian movement has adopted the right wing, to act as it’s “poster child”, and visa-versa. These natural allies routinely scratch each others back, i.e., legislative favors in return for financial and voter support; and political propaganda is often employed by both sides.
The morality and credibility of the Christian right, and the Republican party, is slowly eroding, and there’s something seriously wrong with the “Right”! How can they claim to be “Pro-Life, when they support illegal and unjust wars, where innocent men, woman, and children, are killed by the thousands, and dismissed as merely “collateral damage”? How can George Bush claim to be “pro-life” when, as Governor of Texas, he signed more death warrants than the other 49 states combined? Some among the executed, have sadly, since been found to have been innocent, after modern forensic technology determined their murder was unwarranted. And, how can the church support a regime, who’s Patriot Act has the propensity of restricting ALL of our freedoms, including, (at there convenience), our freedom of religion!
Not only is the Christian right guilty of supporting a failed President, but there are major failures in the churches themselves. How in hell can they claim the moral high ground, when they indulge in money laundering, ministers officiating over gay marriages, and priests and bishops molesting children? What moral authority does the church have now, to dictate who does, or does not take communion?
Further confusing things, is the fact that many so-called “Christians”, are naive and easily lead, as if they no longer have minds of their own. They can easily be made to support or reject a given idea, merely by the power of suggestion from their spiritual leaders. Some of these suggestions are more preposterous than others, and men “of the cloth” have been known to even stretch the truth, from time to time. “Thou shall not what?”. In 1992 Pat Robertson, of the 700 Club, told the world via TV, that God spoke to him and assured him that Bush 41 was going to win a 2nd term. History bares evidence that someone was lying, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t God. Well, he’s at it again. Before another global audience, earlier this year, this false profit proclaimed similar revelations for Bush 43. If the current poles and voting trends are any indication, then Pat must be halusenating again. Perhaps he’s spending too much time in his African diamond minds, and the lack of fresh air, has been effecting his thinking. Yet, millions of Americans continue to religiously take their words as
Gospel.
Well, lets see what the good book does have to say. It says that in the end times, there will be wars. Bush guaranteed we would have wars. It also mentions “rumors” of wars. That would be the numerous unsubstantiated reports of foiled terrorist attacks, we now get regularly. It also warns us to beware of false profits. We’ve already heard from some of them, more than once. The good book also warns us that, in the end times, the church wll fall, and it certainly is falling. In addition, the Bible clearly states that in these times,”millions will be fooled”, and so they are! Finally, the scriptures warn us that “vengeance is mine, saith the lord”. Many wonder if this past hurricane season was his way of telling us something.
I don’t suppose God is too happy with us lately. We’ve trashed his globe, Jews deny the gift of his only son, we commit crimes in his name, and scorn his name as we systematically try to remove evidence of his name from our daily lives. As we proceed through the uncertainty of this new millennium, one thing is clear; all you need do, is look at the world around you, and you’ll realize, “the end is nie”, and we would do well to start listening more to him, and less to those who profess to be speaking for him.
After 4 years in office, the only thing George Bush has to fall back on is 9/11, and his administration even lied about that, (see “Google” on line for “ w119i “ ). His only offense against John Kerry is the accusation of being a “flip-flopper”. A reasonable, thinking person, would more correctly refer to this as, the intellectual ability to change ones own mind. In order to change ones mind, one must first have a thinking mind. I often imagine how much better off we’d be, if only Bush had a second thought, or two. Heck, I would have been ecstatic, if he even had one original thought! But, with all the arrogance he can muster, he continues to imply that God is on his side, as if by his executive order. Furthermore, the energy, environmental, and economic policies of the Republican party are anything but “conservative, and there’s nothing at all “patriotic” about the Patriot Act.
As such, we would do well to let religion sit this one out, and permit logic and common sence to prevail.
Before you go to the polls, take a refreshers glance through your Bible. Next, take a look in your heart. Then, in the quiet privacy of the voting booth, if you listen carefully, God, himself, will tell thou what to do.
AMEN.
Bigger Brother
For a closing thought, then go to this web address
http://home.comcast.net/~biggerbrother1/top10reasonstovote.html
Well, biggerbrother1 it sounds like you pretty much got this whole thing mapped out. Do you have any favorable opinions of Christians?
Jesus boiled it down to only two points, 1)love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and 2) love your neighbor as yourself.He was pretty successful at it, we’re still struggling 2000 yrs later.