Catacomb Resident Blog

Breaking the Rules

25 September 2023

There's an academic discipline called "organizational theory". It's less about organizing and more about theory. What kinds of ways can people come together for a single purpose? What seems to work best for various kinds of purposes? I've come across an awful lot of reading lately that evokes my memories of studies in organizational theory.

As with most things academic in nature, the biggest flaw is that it stands firmly on the foundation of Western Civilization, and so the bulk of content is biased toward one particular human context. It often fails to actually get deep into human nature itself. People who have taken this discipline to other cultures have struggled with the differences. Unless the people they are dealing with adapt and embrace western ways, the theories seem to break down.

One basic category of organization contrasts open versus closed societies. According to the theory, open societies are all about the mission of the society; anyone can join as long as they focus on the mission. Closed societies are more about, "Who knows you?" The doorway is guarded both ways. Thus, you can be ejected from an open society for violating the mission, but you aren't likely to be kicked out a closed group no matter how you may have screwed up, because it's more about the group itself than any alleged mission.

Except it doesn't always work out like; no actual groups are like either one. Real world examples don't actually exist. This is just a discussion of tendencies.

In a Western society, you would expect the ideal for churches to be the open group. But in the Bible, a covenant community is closed. Westerners are largely incapable of doing closed societies properly. It would invariably become corrupt and dirty. And yet, the Bible flatly demands that we learn to live in a closed society, at least according to the definitions of the theory.

What you cannot easily tell western people is that they must ditch their western identity in order to fulfill God's Word. Organizational theory is an artifact of the West.

Jesus answers the entry question of who knows you. The guardian is the Holy Spirit. There is no need for human enforcement beyond mere functional definitions of inside or outside. If you project the image of someone who is desperately trying to follow Jesus, there's every reason to believe the group can see that. You are safe, despite knowing you'll screw up along the way. It's all about that strong family bond; Jesus' blood flows in our veins and it's thicker than water, for sure. The whole purpose of a covenant group is the group itself.

The difference is, as you should expect by now, the western obsession with ontology. The question on western minds is always, "What are you?" What is your nature? The biblical question is, "What role do you play?" This violates the theory of organization. That theory turns the utter necessity of personal connection into something dirty.

And yet, God Himself makes it abundantly clear it's not about the mission, but your connection to Him. The mission is simply how you express that connection.

This is what chokes so many people about the Radix Fidem way. This is not about human organization at all. It's about the meta of human existence in a fallen world. You can join any society or group that pleases you. Radix Fidem is not among those. It's an approach to the underlying question of what groups we should join and why. We don't take the groups themselves that seriously, as they currently exist. Each would be just a means to an end. A genuine covenant group trumps all others, but no one alive has seen one, apparently. While we wait for Him to bring covenant families into existence, we keep our eyes on the end product.

The end is glorifying God, boosting His reputation as He defines it. For us, there is no requirement to be a group at all. There's no hindrance to us becoming a group, but it won't be under the name Radix Fidem. You'll have to call it something else.

For those of you who want to nit-pick: The Radix Fidem forum splits between the meta theme of Radix Fidem and organizing a group. It provides for a fellowship group which is actually called "Kiln of the Soul" led by Ed Hurst. You can choose how you want to participate, and how much. The boundary line for the group is participation. It's open in that sense, and yet there is a distinct closed identity in how you are treated. If you invest enough of yourself, you'll be embraced with family affection. If you disappear, you'll still find that love waiting for a long time after. It is distinctly a privilege-based interaction. Indeed, we don't even do anything except love each other; there's no mission, per se, beyond simply boosting faith.

It violates all the rules. There are no buildings, budgets or bodies. It's all virtual. You can choose any name that suits you, tell us only as much as you like, even lie. The only consequences are those internal to you. None of us have ever seen each other; there is no human leverage at all.

This is by design. We cannot predict how our Lord's enemies might react to our efforts. We've made ourselves rather difficult to target for the typical attacks. The focus has always been the message and building our faith. It's hardly risk-free, and a regular human organization would be far more pleasant. Still, this is what the Lord has given us, because no one planned it to turn out like this. We operate by our convictions, and the combination of all our choices together brings us to this place.

It's all miracle. We have no idea how it will turn out, but we have peace with God about it.


Comments

DarkMirror

I had a close friend a while back, who visited a church a few times and didn't like it because it felt too "clubby," like they only cared too much about themselves. Granted, they probably got a lot of that wrong, but I never thought caring about church members too much was a bad thing. My friend was also very standoffish at times, so that might've played into it.

Catacomb Resident

The mental image of "church" in the minds of people too often excludes being familial.


This document is public domain; spread the message.