 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
SINCE 1972 At that point such communities were new. For all practical purposes, like many other things, they began with Vatican Council II. There were precursors, people and groups who had made successful experiments. Many of those are referred to in the text and in the bibliography. But as a trend within the church, it was the Vatican documents and the sort of pastoral experimentation that led to the recommendations of the Medellin conference that gave rise to what we now know as Christian communities in the church. The Vatican Council produced the new movements, because it encouraged the development of grassroots movements. Before the Catholic Church changed slowly and most changes in church life, especially when begun by laity, were usually under fairly close supervision of the clergy and developed gradually, with careful integration. With the Council, that changed radically. Since then grassroots movements have been the order of the day. Not all of what has resulted has been good. But the change was probably essential to allow the church to adapt to a rapidly changing world. And some of what has resulted is very good. With grassroots movements came the development of communities. That too was a mixed phenomenon. Some, for instance, became vehicles of Marxist social change and were not genuinely Christian communities. Some became disruptive to church life. Some were formed or led in an unsound way and were problematic to the members. But overall the communities that developed produced good fruit, fruit in the lives of the members, fruit in the life of the church, fruit for Christian mission. The recognition of that fruit can be seen in the various church documents. Perhaps the greatest change since 1972 has been the extent of official Catholic Church recognition of communities. That recognition, however, was not simply a recognition of the Christian communities in the church. It was first and foremost a recognition of associations in the church and of the associational principle. With the new code of canon law (1983) and the Synod documentChristifideles Laici (1988), the right of association was clearly established. Even before the new code, bishops, national bishops' conferences, and regional groupings of bishops had begun to recognize communities and encourage their formation. However, the clear statement of the right of association was an important element in the development of communities because, as Building Christian Communities indicates, communities rarely are successfully planned and started by design. They more commonly grow up and then send out new shoots or seeds. Once bishops recognized and allowed such a development, communities could flourish freely - and did. An ideological issue also turned out to be important in the development of communities. Many of the communities that first began, especially in "third world" countries, became cells for social change. In principle that is not problematic, but, as was soon recognized, many of them became cells for Marxist change and supported Communist programs and Communist guerrillas. They were somewhat alien cells within the church and often were revolutionary in regard to the Catholic hierarchy as well. That development probably accounts for the change from the term "basic Christian community", which can be found in the Medellin documents, to the term "basic ecclesial communities" which is more current in church documents today. The solution the Catholic Church evolved for what was problematic could be called the "principle of ecclesiality". It is presented most fully in Christifideles Laici. Wisely, the church authorities did not revert to a principle of organizational control. Instead they accepted the autonomy of the communities and taught principles for good relationship within the church body. That development promises to be successful both in fostering communities and integrating them positively into church life. Another significant development was the origin of the covenant community movement. As Building Christian Communities was being written, the first covenant community was formed. Since then hundreds have been formed around the world, and they too have received official recognition as a form of community life. They will be referred to more fully below. Communities seem to be part of the future in the Catholic Church. That is more obvious in some parts of the world than others. Nonetheless, in the church as a whole they are increasingly contributing to the vitality of Catholic life and seem like they will do so for some time to come. WHAT I SEE HAPPENING NOW First, I have observed that most of the communities that have formed in the last twenty-five years are communities that are towards the lower end of the size that was indicated in the first edition of this book (20-40 people). I think that is simply because it is possible to have community life with a group of that size without much complexity and therefore with less resources. More ability and organization is needed to move beyond that point. It probably should be added that many groups that call themselves communities are only informal environments in the terminology of Building Christian Communities. That does not mean that they are deficient or have no contribution to make. Such groups are valuable. They usually, however, turn out to be short-lived and are unable to perform the kind of functions a "basic community" as defined in the book, can. It may be too soon to say, but I see a new pattern emerging in some parishes and dioceses that primarily involves smaller communities. When the parish and diocese is committed to those communities, and provides certain kinds of help for them, they are more viable than they would be on their own. As a result, there seem to be places where many smaller communites have been formed in parishes or in the context of city-wide interparochial diocesan structures, that seem to be providing new vitality. This may prove to be an approach with long-term viability and helpfulness. Second, there seem to be two main types of communities that are developing. One is the smaller community of the sort I have been speaking about. The second is the larger community, usually a covenant community. The larger community generally has a purpose that is more oriented to a mission and is less tied to particular church structures or contexts. The larger community can helpfully be seen as in the tradition of religious communities. The members are mostly married people with secular jobs and families. In that way, such communities are unlike traditional religious communities and secular institutes or newer communities of consecrated life. However, like traditional religious communities these new communities are more stable, with higher commitment and with a special way of life. They seek to be allowed to relate well to the church in the broader context of the diocese or the universal church and to pursue a mission of their own. They meet the need in many people that religious communities met, and still meet, and they provide some of the same resources for more effective mission. In my view, the smaller communites and the larger communities of a covenant community type can ideally be complementary. The smaller communites are often not viable for very long, because they lack the resources and commitment to last with much vitality. Covenant communities, if they recognize and work with the difference between their internal dynamics and the dynamics of a small communty, can learn to provide much added help. In a diocese that wanted to form many Christian communities to increase the vitality of its life and that had a strong covenant community, the covenant community could potentially provide a service to the broader community movement. There are several places where this has already occurred. One of the chief questions raised by covenant communites and any other larger type of community is the question of integration with the structure of the church. That issue is treated in a book that I have edited, Covenant Community and Church (Manila: Word of Joy, 1993). That book also contains other material that would be helpful, even for different kinds of communities, and a selection of church documents that supplements what is here. WHAT I WOULD ADD To begin with, there is nothing in Building Christian Communities that I would cancel or warn against. The principles are, I believe, true. I would, however, make some developments. First, while the book recognizes that a basic community needs organization if it is going to be more than an informal environment, it does not say much about that organization. The basic principles of a communal organization are presented in the section "Finding Leaders for Communities", but they only sketch the beginnings. To go farther would need a different sort of book, but it would help to mention membership and status. Membership is not treated and hardly mentioned. It is, however, a crucial element for the development of a basic community. There has to be some means for people to come to the point of being committed members. For that to work effectively, there also has to be a way to provide them what they need to live the way of life of the community and to maintain their commitment. There has to be, in other words, some form of catechumenate or initiations process. Status is also treated somewhat inadequately. The section on "The Status Approach" in Chapter 5 only treats status as it functions in a traditional grouping. However, even in modern society, community needs some kind of institutionalization and therefore status if it is going to continue with stability and vitality and faithfulness of purpose. For a community to remain a community, especially in the conditions of modern society, the community leadership does need to operate with an environmental approach, as Building Christian Communities says. A traditional status-based organization will not suffice. The environmental approach, however, has to be the basis for the communal organization needed for continuity. That organization will, of necessity, work with some stable positions that will exist independently of the people that fill them. To use the terminology of the first edition, the leaders will need some kind of status or recognized standing in the community. Second, the book speaks as if only men would be the leaders of Christian communities. In 1972, that was the way most people spoke. Yet, successful communities, even then, recognized the need for women's leadership. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and most people speak as if men and women are simply interchangeable in community leadership. The more experience I have, the more I am convinced that this is not true. Communities led by women rarely become vital basic communities. Communities without effective women leadership rarely become healthy Christian communities. The key is the right sort of complementarity. My book Man and Women in Christ (Ann Arbor: Servant, 1981) provides a presentation of the important principles for successfully dealing with this area. Third, Building Christian Communities does not treat the difference between communities in "third world" countries and communities in "first world" countries. Ironically, in a country like the United States, the source of most of the examples in the book, it is not much more difficult to build community than it is in a country like the Philippines or Mexico or Zaire. The process of technological development and the complexity of life as technology develops makes community more difficult. It does not make it less needed, though. In "third world" countries, communities can be formed more rapidly and with greater vitality. In "first world" countries, more patient development is needed with more ongoing work of maintaining the community in the face of rapid social changes. In both, communities meet a need. CONCLUSION We are talking about Christian community as a means to serve spiritual renewal. Modern society provides many challenges for Christian renewal, not to mention the challenges it presents for healthy human life. The past twenty years have been a time of Christian advance in some places in the world, but not of an overall worldwide advance for the cause of Christ. A genuine, continuing spiritual renewal that will be a fountain of new life is needed. For this communities can make a major contribution. When we are discussing Christian community, we are not discussing a technique or method. We are discussing principles for corporate Christian life. We are therefore discussing some of the social dynamics that support bodies of people who love one another. These, however, are no substitute for true love of God and love of neighbor in Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Building Christian Community - Strategy for Renewing the Church by Stephen B. Clark. ©Stephen B. Clark 1996 All Rights reserved. |
||||||||||||||