BLOG ARCHIVE

Frazee, Randy.  The Connecting Church: Beyond Small Groups to Authentic Community.

Before You Start Reading...

A couple of simple questions to reflect on and share with each other as we prepare to read this book together: What is it that makes you want to read this book? What do you hope to gain from a reading of this book?

john telgren said… One of the things that I hope to gain is to gain some deeper insights on possible ways to go to the next level in relationship building and growing in discipleship. As a leader of a small group ministry, it occurs to me that growth is an ever changing thing so I need to constantly and humbly look for additional insights, wisdom, stories, and instruction on how to facilitate this in the roles that I fill.

dan said… Hello John - and all participants. Obviously finding ways to move forward in developing relationship within the body is a primary goal - personalized. Part of my reason in participating is that I am connecting in some real way with brothers/sisters beyond my local area. Though I will contribute, I hope to gain as much from them in developing my thinking on an issue of common interest. The book though good and helpful provides the common ground for this relationship. What we say to one another in the context of our discussion should be most helpful as it is the "between us" that the Spirit actually can work. Though the book shapes our thinking and conversation it will be when we reach out and touch that the relationship moves forward. Often in church there is much discussion in any given class - but seldom real connection between individuals - highlighting the need for this study in the context of mutually interested parties so we can take this back to those we have responsibility for and better relate to them. Dan Nelson

del said… John - I think I'm in, so I can start contributing @ some point.

==================================================

Introductory Section: Loneliness and Community (p.1-37)

After reading pages 1-37, reflect on the following paragraph:

In the forward, Dallas Willard states, "All too often real-life connections simply run on a different track from 'church' and remain unredeemed and unredemptive" (17). Later, Frazee writes that, like the Johnsons, many today have "too many worlds to manage. There are too many sets of relationships that do not connect with each other but all require time to maintain" (33). Frazee suggests that the most profound thought of his book is that "Biblical community is the life of Christ on earth today" (22). Then, in the second chapter, Frazee suggests that authentic community in the church is not an option, but a necessity. Explain why you would agree or disagree with this. If you agree, what are some of the implications for your congregation? What do your actions as a congregation demonstrate about its attitude toward connectedness, community, and fellowship?

John Telgren said...   I can relate to some of what is in this book There was a time in our life when it seemed we were 15-20 minutes away from a lot of things, including church. We got burned out on our once a month fellowship group (which was 20 minutes away) because it was one more duty to perform and one more world to manage. We tried to attend more than Sunday morning, but it was hard to make it at every meeting, especially with a toddler. We experienced more community in our breezeway than in church, that was because all of us neighbors (who happened to all have small children) made a conscious effort to connect to each other and be involved in each other's lives. We babysat, played games, went to the park, had birthdays, and did a number of other things together. But these were not people from our congregation. Somehow, we thought Christian community was optional, yet we desired it but didn't know how to get it. We attended worship on Sunday mornings, but felt there was something missing.

In the congregation we are at now, there was a time when it seemed that community was optional. The way meetings were set up communicated that worship attendance was necessary, but community was optional. There were two worship periods on Sunday. Attendance was always highest at the worship period, lower at Bible classes, and even lower at other events which were underdtood to be fellowship events. Thankfully, with the coming of Life Groups in 2003, this seems to slowly be changing. Having Life Groups on Sunday nights communicates that we as a whole believe community to be important enough that we the leaders will facilitate it through Small Group Ministries that meet once a week at a minimum. I think this book will be very instructive, because I have the feeling that there are many of us that attend small groups that have not gotten past a certain threshold of deeper community that we can have in neighborhood groups. We have made significant progress over the last three or four years, but this is not finished. It is something that still needs to grow.

===================================

Section One: Plague of Individualism and Integrative Solution (p.41-106)

After reading pages 41-106, reflect on the following paragraph:

Frazee identifies western individualism (that leads to a dysfunctional or co-dependent culture in churches and small groups) as a major obstacle to spiritual growth. His solution is to unite the church around a common, biblical purpose that revolves around the overarching purposes of loving God and neighbor that are facilitated by:

1. common belief (doctrines),
2. spiritual practices (spiritual disciplines), and
3. virtues (character).

These are also facilitated through communal characteristics of :

1. authority (because disclosure without accountability creates co-dependency),
2. a common creed/affirmation,
3. traditions,
4. spiritual practices, and a
5. common mission.

There are some things in this section that both our American culture and our church heritage have an aversion to for various reasons. Keeping these in mind, reflect on some of the possible benefits and/or pitfalls of this overall framework. Was there anything you disagreed with in this overall framework and why? What do you find of most value in this reading?

John Telgren said...   In Churches of Christ, there is an understandable aversion to anything that looks or sounds like a creed. Yet I am struck by the fact that New Testament writers often make statements of faith that sound sort of like a creed. Affirmations of the faith we hold in common in a systematic and memorable way should aid not only in instruction, but in strenghtening our common bond in community. It seems to me that summarizing our "core beliefs" which undergird our "core practices" should be a beneficial excercise.

One of the things that stood out for me is Frazee's point that assimilation into a congregation and spiritual formation are not the same and often get confused, which often results in assimilation happening without spiritual formation. Spiritual formation excercises and spiritual practices need to be part of the assimilation process. I have rarely heard of a spiritual formation group in our fellowship, probably becaus our heritage has an unbalanced emphasis on rationalism and logic. Spiritual direction, fasting, simplicity, Bible reading as a spiritual practice, contemplative prayer, etc. seem too strange, foreign, or even Catholic for us, yet you find these practices modeled in scripture. I think that formation into the image of Christ needs to be a priority, otherwise there will probably be little true transformation which would make us more like a social club than we would like to admit.

The idea of "authority" or "accountability" also stood out to me. Disclosure without accountability in small groups could be a reason why some groups stagnate and produce no real transformation. It seems that transformation can rarely if ever happen except in the context of authentic community that includes accountability.

Pitfalls? There are always pitfalls to everything. Sure there is the possibility that formulaic or creedal formulations can replace praxis. Sure there is the danger that spiritual practices and disciplines can be abused in such a way that they become an end in themselves. Of course there is the possiblity that authority and accountability can be abused. But I do not believe these pitfall outweigh the benefits or the necessity of a framework for community that includes these elements. Scripture models these elements of community, so it seems to be that facilitating true community is a must just as much as being aware of the pitfalls are.

========================

Section Two: The Plague of Isolation and Geographic Solution (p.109-176)

According to Frazee, the second major challenge to Christian community is isolation. He suggests, among other things, that friendships that this has promoted "contractual friendships (125-126)," which usually has to involve precise planning, leading to contrived rather than a natural friendships. Frazee's solution involves realigning our lives around neighborhood community that involves:

• Spontaneity (Spontaneous togetherness without need for constant coordination)
• Availability (Being available at all times)
• Frequency (Getting together often)
• Common Meals (sharing meals together regularly)
• Geography (living physically close to each other)

Implementing these solutions may involve such things as relocation, reducing commutes, going to a single income, simplifying life, commit to spending time together, playing in the front yard, bringing neighbors together, etc. -- The principle is - "..concentrated efforts in small geographic boundaries can produce greater results" (170).

What is your reaction to this section? Do you agree that isolation is a problem even among Christians in American culture? Are even Christian freindships of the "contractural" kind? Are Frazee's solutions realistic? How do the biblical teachings concerning community, church, fellowship, etc. shed light on these issues?

John Telgren said...   My first reaction to a lot of this is that this just doesn't seem realistic. In our busy world, how can it be possible to do have the kind of community that he talks about. Then it occured to me that it is a matter of priorities. Becoming a Christian in the early church meant a complete re-alignment of priorities and life. It often meant being shunned by family, freinds, and community, but it also meant being connected to a new community as family. Maybe part of the problem is that we expect too little from Christianity. Is it possible to go to living as a one income family, to change jobs to where the commute is much less, to move to a new home that both simplifies life and enables more meaningful connections to other Christians? Yes, it is possible with great sacrifice. But are we willing to take up his cross and follow him? That is a question to explore. This level of commitment might cause some to call us a cult, but that is nothing new. Early Christians were also seen as obstinate and committed to the point of absurdity. It wasn't until Christianity became "respectable" that the commitment level started to wane. Maybe we need to step back and try to disentagle our cultural lens and see Christianity as Jesus presents it.

===================================================

Section Three: The Plague of Consumerism and the Solution of Interdependence (p.177-247)

In the last section of his book, Frazee deals with the challenge of consumerism (an attitude that mutually feeds off of individualism and isolation) to the Christian life. In what ways to you agree or disagree with his assessment(s) and suggested solutions (which include such things as a decentralized church structure, literally sharing life, interdependency, and living the Christian life and ministry in the context of smaller groupings, similar to what is described in passages such as Acts 2)? What is your reaction to the conclusion of the story of the Johnson family? What, if anything, do you find helpful in this section?

John Telgren said... While I agree that consumerism, isolation, and individualism are a plagues to Christian faith, and while I agree that there is a need to re-capture the kind of community the Bible describes for us, I am having trouble visualizing the "decentralized" structure Frazee speaks of. I am not sure how the "Mid-Sized" group works. It almost seems as though there are neighborhood groups arranged geographically, and that the mid-sized groups would be more equivalent to a congregation, while the largest grouping is more like an area-wide worship service that meets weekly. Identity as part of the church would come primarily from the home group and the mid-sized group, It doesn't appear that there would be much of an emotional attachment to the largest group.

I don't think Frazee is saying there is something inherently wrong or evil about Christians living in Suburbia, rather it is the underlying attitudes and values that have contributed to the creation of suburbia that he takes to task. -- How can we, as Christians with Christian values face this challenge? It seems that small groups are a healthy way of meeting the challenge if we actually take the time to invest emotionally, spiritually, physically, etc. into the small groups.

===================================================

Conclusion of the Book

Share your overall reactions to the book here, or any other random thoughts concerning the reading or related topic here.

John Telgren said... There may be something to this decentrilization (the Church at Rome appears to have been made up of house churches), but I don't believe that decentralization should be disconnection either. The early church seems to have cooperated in various ministries and even came together for various reasons (such as the Judaizing issue). I believe the largest church in the world is in Soeul, and is made up of what Youngi-Cho (the minister) refers to as "Cell Groups." It seems that there should be a healthy balance in all of this though. I read Young-Cho's book a few years ago on Cell Groups. One of the main issues with a church that is made up of small groups (as opposed to having small groups) is the issue of leadership. There needs to be theologically, biblically, spiritually, and emotionally grounded leadership. The Bible calls them elders, overseers, and shepherds/pastors, or even Deacons (as in the case of Acts 6). In order for this to work, there needs to be an abundance of mature leadership.

From what I have been reading, the house church movement has been growing like wild-fire. The house churches that I have been reading about are usually connected to a larger church and has the benefit of spiritually mature leadership and mentoring, but share most of their life and ministry in the context of their neighborhood.

I think the biggest lesson for me is that in order to have any sort of meaningful "iron-sharpens-iron" relationships where we can enjoy them rather than feel like it is a duty, is to invest ourselves in the relationship. Like so many other things, we get out of it what we put into it. Minimal investment in a small group will result in minimal impact. I doubt there would be any meaninful ministry or growth with only a loose attendance commitment.

Is there some way we can engage in more ministry in small groups that goes beyond just meeting to doing something meaninful by way of service, ministry, etc.?

I would love to hear some more feedback from the others in the group.