Forming a fellowship - Introduction
Background for gathering a small group of Catholic folks
By Steve Hall
Creation of small groups as a means of spiritual growth
The circumstances which introduced me to INFERNO are forgotten; but it was a bit more than two years ago that that introduction came about. Having a serious background in parish religious education from a few decades past made me initially curious and then intrigued by the apostolate that was developing through Inferno. The COR program in particular grabbed my attention.
While working as a Director of Religious Education in a Denver suburban parish, the creation of small groups as a means of spiritual growth became evident, even necessary. And so, at that time I pursued a Masters Degree in interpersonal/small group communication at the University of Denver.
That educational endeavor was subsequently interrupted because of my growing family circumstances as well as because of the needs of my family of origin. For several years both religious education and interpersonal communication were relegated to the sidelines, though both continued to hold my interest. The annual event which gathers so many men together for guidance, fellowship, encouragement and instruction may seem the most important of Inferno activities; but from my point of view COR is primary for long-term, wide-spread spiritual growth. It is of prime importance from an anthropological and sociological perspective as well as from a spiritual one.
Neither the rationale for nor the advantages of COR groups is self-evident. But my religious and academic backgrounds tell me that COR groups are more than just a good idea. They are central to the salvation we seek and are particularly valuable in our age of excessive individualism.
When I first heard of INFERNO and COR, it was clear to me that I was back in my element. Nevertheless, I looked in vain for any directive materials to support the raison d’etre of the model INFERNO was proposing. Consequently, I was led to try to fill that gap by developing a brief pamphlet/booklet on the value of the COR concept.
What is this outline for?
After writing a section intended for this pamphlet, I attempted to engage a couple of friends in doing a critical review. My concern at the time was the possibility of my writing being too academic, too obtuse, or just too boring to be of interest. At the first opportunity for a critique, they confronted me with a simple question: Why are you writing this? I couldn’t answer the question at the time, but quickly realized that more than a few words on the topic were going to be necessary. First, an answer was necessary to sharpen the focus of my writing and second, it was necessary to clarify for the reader what value these thoughts might possibly contain.
Small Group Communication is a significant part of my academic background, though I came into it through what you might call ‘the back door.’ My initial interest in the subject developed as I was completing my studies for a master’s degree in Religious Education. The Church had its own problems with confusion at the time because the Second Vatican Council had recently completed and there were a wide variety of issues that arose among those persons trying to answer the question of what to do next.
My own issues with religion and education had begun to develop at about the same time. As part of the program in Religious Education, all participants were assigned to teach a religion class for one year at a local Catholic High School. The opinion of my students was never sought out; but my opinion of my teaching efforts would most suitably line the dustbin. It was in that teaching experience that I discovered that the academics of religion were valuable primarily to those who enjoyed academics. While religion is commonly taught at academic institutions, the essence of religion – spiritual development and a relationship with God – are not compatible with the standard educational format. So, what was Religious Education supposed to look like?
Fortunately, my degree program had brought to the fore several points which would prove essential to the type of religious education I was becoming aware was needed. The academic underpinning was still essential, but a notable shift away from ‘booklearning’ was also required. That shift would lead directly to interpersonal communication. You might say there was a shift from knowing the importance of the Word of God to knowing the Word that was God. But, interestingly enough, the necessity of interpersonal human communication also became apparent, though less obviously so.
Progressing in the degree program of Religious Education had included completing classes in Doctrine, Morality and Scripture among others. Clearly, all these can be handled in the standard educational format. My own ‘religious education’ as a child was but a simplified version of these same higher-level doctrine and morality courses. They were presented in a book called the Baltimore Catechism.
In the master’s degree program, however, I had been introduced to something called Salvation History. In essence, the concept of Salvation History centers on the actual presence of God among men. Further, that divine presence and activity were recorded in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) and that same presence and activity was understood to continue yet today. In this more cosmic view, the Scriptures are not about the activities of men, but about the activity of God as He is present and active among men.
This change in perspective emphasizes an interaction that can easily be overlooked or minimized. God speaks to man. God is the protector of man. God works to form man. God is the salvation of man. However, it must be noted that each one of these endeavors on the part of God – speaking to, protecting from, forming, and saving – require a response. It is with this understanding that religious education becomes more than an academic venture. Rather it is necessarily a reflection about how God is speaking (or has spoken) to us and how we respond.
Our lives are a continuous, ongoing, and progressive series of interactions. They begin before we are born and end…? It is this engagement with the many aspects and dimensions of the world that makes us ‘real.’ My developing interest in Small Group Communication both grew out of and fed upon this understanding while simultaneously pointing me back to the interaction of God and man. It is not coincidence that Sacred Scripture is known as the Word of God. A Word is a communication and needs a response. Neither is it accidental that John chose to identify Jesus as the Word.
During my early post-education years, I was part of a team working full time as Directors of Religious Education in a large suburban parish. As was common in those years, the parish children were the initial focus of the team’s endeavors. Over time our attention turned to considerations of some form of adult programs and how that might be done. While our parish hardly qualified as a mega church, we still needed to deal with more than three thousand families. It was in that context that the necessity of small groups became more than just evident. It was a necessity.
Circumstances and the Spirit took me away from a direct involvement in religious education for many years; but my conviction that the small group was essential to religious development never disappeared. Upon retirement my wife and I moved to Colorado and came to live in our current parish. There we found several incipient small groups already active. I say ‘incipient’ because many of these groups had not advanced beyond the ‘group with a purpose’ stage. Then came the awareness of a diocese-wide program called INFERNO and their concept of COR. It was clear to me that I was back in my element; but I looked in vain for any directive materials to support the raison d’etre of the model Inferno was proposing. Hopefully, this pamphlet will fill that gap.
Begin With Your Individual Identity
The Broadway musical, Les Miserable, opens at the point where Jean Valjean, a French prisoner identified as #24601, is about to be released. Events very quickly reveal that, in the years that followed his parole, Valjean has failed to maintain the required contact with his parole officer, Javert, and has begun a successful new life as a businessman. It then comes to light that another has been mistaken for Valjean and that ‘other’ will be returned to prison in Valjean’s stead because of the parole violation. Valjean must decide whether to reveal the error or let another return to prison in his place. The scene concludes with a powerful song whose closing lines are as follows.
Who am I? Who am I?
I'm Jean Valjean!
And so Javert, you see it's true
This man bears no more guilt than you!
Who am I?
24601!
Valjean’s struggle to reconcile his prisoner past with his businessman present is characteristic of the ‘identity crisis’ which loomed so large among young adults in the late fifties and subsequent decades. At the time the search had to do with ‘finding one’s self.’ It was a question in anxious pursuit of an answer: What kind of person am I? What does it mean to be me? Our discussion of individualism here has only tenuous connections to the personal identity issue of those days.
The individualism we explore here is a mental construct or framework from which we view the world. It is a mental set which advocates that the interests of the individual should have precedence over both the state and any social group. It opposes outside interference by society or institutions, including the institution of government.
Following such a mind-set assumes that my individualism is and should be the primary focus of my existence, that independence and self-reliance are rightly held in high esteem, that realizing one’s goals and desires are appropriately the main objective for everyone, that I am what I make of myself. It is common to associate artistic and Bohemian people with the individualistic mind-set.
We know that there are variations between cultures as well as variations within cultures as regards the relative importance of individual-oriented and group-oriented attitudes. Societies and groups can differ in the extent to which they are based upon predominantly ‘self-regarding’ (individualistic and/or self-interested) behaviors, rather than ‘other-regarding’ (group-oriented, and group, or society-minded behaviors).
As with all mind-sets, both moderate and extreme positions can be held along with every gradation in between. When advocates of individualism hold their position in moderation, they are among those proclaiming that “That government which governs least, governs best. In other words, they would not deny the necessity of government (though the form may be disputed) but would contend that the government should only become active in society in those areas and to the degree that necessity requires. That was the stance of most US citizens until the twentieth century.
From that moderate position people can, and sometimes do, move into more or less extreme forms. There are multiple sub-categories of individualism, and each necessarily exhibits some degree of anarchy according to the degree to which they insist on self-interest over outside control. It is the movement toward anarchy that measures the degree to which the position has become more or less extreme. Absolute individual identity internalizes all authority: I am the source of everything.
Nevertheless, a moderate degree of individualism has notable benefits. This is evidenced by the fact that first world countries are the most individualistic and third world countries are the least individualistic.
Consider The Group, Or Collective Identity
The counterpart to individual identity is group or collective identity. This too is a construct or mind-set; but not just that of a single person. The focus is on the identity of the group-as-a-whole rather than on the individual association with the group. For group identity to be meaningful it must be held by more than one person. There must be a common or shared sense that one belongs to a group. There must also be a relationship among the members; and ultimately some emotional connection as well. This is clearly more than a group that gathers for a project.
These parameters make it clear that, when we are speaking of a group identity, we are not talking about a simple gathering such as people working in the same office or those attending the same concert. These people may be referred to as a group, but they do not have a group identity. On the other hand, common or shared interest may result in the development of a group identity. Throughout our lives we will necessarily be part of many groups, but we will only share a group identity with some.
As we have seen, individualistic identity can morph into extreme positions, all of which manifest greater or lesser tendencies toward anarchy. Group or collective identity has its own destructive elements, all of which are revealed in tendencies toward conformity. This may be the simple teenage conformity expressed in the statement: “Everybody’s doing it.” Cultures readily propound this characteristic though generally not in a problematic way. We see this in the accepted manner of acknowledging a new acquaintance or taking leave of a gathering. Certain words are not said in polite society, nor are certain topics discussed. Europeans think Americans are too casual about violence in films and too prudish about nudity. And, of course, the reciprocal is also true.
During World War II a study was conducted to determine differences between Japanese and American attitudes. Among the results of the study was an awareness that Cultural Societies are a group, and they have their own standards just as do those who share a small group identity. It should not be difficult for anyone to recall some things that they discussed with one gathering of people but never with another.
Group identity in the extreme is mindless behavior. It is seen in the classic example called mob behavior. Individuals who have succumbed to this mentality do not make decisions on their own. The group does that for them.
Current American society is being pushed by some towards conformity in ways not previously seen – at least not in a long time or on such a broad scale. Tolerance for positions different from one’s own is not acceptable in certain places or gatherings. Difference is confronted with active, even violent pressure; and this demand for conformity to the group is far more entrenched than the ostracism used by previous generations to pressure non-conformers. Civil discussion and debate are discouraged. Reason is ignored. Conformity is demanded. All these elements are indicative of a group identity that has moved to the extreme.
George Orwell warned of this extreme in his novel 1984. Although he was reviewing the dangers of certain political positions, his observations are applicable to a variety of groups. When any given group rewrites the meaning of words – Ignorance is Strength. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. – to suit their own purpose, it’s time to worry. When any given group decides that something other than rational argument should determine the outcome of dispute, its time to worry. When any given group uses force rather than logic to determine outcomes, it’s time to worry. The term ‘group’ as used in this context may or may not have a ‘group identity.’
The Tension Between the Individual And The Group
The nature of our humanity reveals an individuality that cannot be denied. I am born as a separate, distinct person as is every other human being. At the same time, there has always been a measure of group identity in my life. If I had been sufficiently aware at the time of birth, I would have found that I was born into a group.
The two – individual identity and group identity – are too disparate to see them as part of a continuum. However, both are always present, and both are always at odds, and both are consistently necessary. Obviously, the two exist in a continual state of tension, always seeking either a satisfying balance or a position of dominance. Such balance is not easily achieved. Yet few are either completely individualistic or completely swallowed up by group identity. We have both at the same time. The tension becomes serious, however, when one type of identity seeks marked ascendency over the other.
We’ve already considered the principal detrimental aspects of each; but what do we get from these two different identities? What are the positives.
As already noted, I am conceived and born as an individual. But then, so is every blade of grass. Every person and every bade of grass can theoretically say I am this person, not that one; or I am this blade of grass, not that one. In the sense we are using individuality here, however, our self-awareness or self-consciousness plays a defining role. In terms of how I see myself in the world self-awareness is critical. My individuality, my uniqueness as a person will most likely blossom and be fruitful in those circumstances where I am conscious (if not overly conscious) of what I bring to a given situation and seek to outwardly express that. This is one of many jobs of a coach: to recognize and draw out the talents of the individual player.
What Do We Get From Individual Identity?
So, what do we get from our sense of individuality, our individual identity? As previously noted, the greatest benefits of what we here call individual identity or self-regarding behaviors is the focus on our uniqueness. Why? Because it is in becoming aware of and sensitive to those things which make us different that the dreams of what might be possible become realities. As individual persons we can then reach a sense of achievement or accomplishment which might otherwise never come to fruition. It is also true that the world, in either the immediate or the broad sense, will also benefit.
Consider the phrase “ahead of his time.” What does that mean? It specifically expresses the idea that an individual has gone beyond the standard or common norms/beliefs/understanding of his society or culture. While such insights may be shared, they necessarily begin with a single person. It is meaningless to consider a group being “ahead of its time” without expecting a single source within that group who proposed this radical shift in vision.
The individual-oriented position is that of the dreamer.
The group-oriented position is that of retaining the valuable.
What Do We Get From Group Identity?
But there is more. There is also a group identity which contributes to the creation of the men or women we become; and we must consider how that, too, is valuable. Probably the most obvious contribution of group identity is security in knowing we are not alone. We belong to and are part of something greater than our individual selves. This is not inconsequential; even the most successful individualist prefers being able to share his accomplishments.
A sense of security is not the only benefit derived from group identity; for that identity also defines who we are as individuals. It is through our interaction with others that notable parts of our self-identity are formed. However, the group does something more. When we share a group identity with others that sharing is itself a form of identification. This is true even in the simplest, non-identifying form. As part of a group attending a concert, we identify our ‘selves’ as selves liking a certain kind of music or a particular artist. With the development of a group identity and the corresponding development of group-minded behaviors, the strengthening of our own identity is increased. But it’s essential to note that that identity which is strengthened is principally strengthened in ways that effect conformity to the group. That’s why we may ‘try on’ different groups only to reject some when we discover that their group identity is incompatible with the self-identity previously formed.
The group is a balance to our self-interest as it requires a recognition of the needs and opinions of others. The group may also be supportive of one’s convictions and a modifier (for good or ill) of behavior. And ultimately the group gives the individual a ‘testing ground’ for ideas, thoughts, opinions.
Identification with the group has the benefit of helping to keep one’s “feet on the ground” and providing a balance to having “one’s head in the clouds. Such restrictions may or may not be appropriate, but they do offer the opportunity to “bounce something off the wall.”
A Historical Perspective Of Forming Groups
We organize the world we live in partially by assigning words/objects/ideas/etc. to groups/categories/types/etc. The thesaurus offers a wide range of alternative words for this organizational venture: (collection, band, fellowship, unit, assemblage defined by a relationship, class, batch, party, federation, sect); but the most generic word for the action seems to be ‘group.’ We place everything in a group.
The lack of precision in ambiguous words can be either a curse or a blessing. The word ‘group’ is an excellent example. How open-ended or how restrictive can such a word be? With minimal parameters the term ‘group’ can refer to something of enormous size: e.g., material things in one group and immaterial things in another. With many parameters a group can be as small as we choose to make it—provided, of course, that it has at least two members. It is meaningless to talk about a group of one.
On the other hand, the number of components does not of itself determine whether or not there is a group. If a celebrity incidentally draws a large gathering of people, can we automatically identify them as a group? The answer is only ‘yes’ if we specify the right parameters. Suppose that the people gathered around our celebrity are there for different reasons: Those who admire the celebrity, those who are curious about why a crowd has gathered and those who are there to record the event. Now we have four groups. The three which we just identified and the fourth which is the entire mass of those so gathered. So, we have the whole group (whose only parameter is that they are people who have gathered in one general area at one specific day and time) and, within that whole, three separate groups whom we have identified as groups with a similar purpose.
However, it must also be noted that using the term ‘group’ in this context is a generic use of the word. It is not the same as group or communal identity. What this tells us is that some point of commonality is always used to specify a group. That commonality may be as simple as a color or as complex as the number of parameters we specify. But this commonality or group sense is not something that can be imposed from the outside. Rather it is the members themselves who make that determination.
Alone?
Although isolation may occasionally be preferred, there are not many things we prefer to do alone. The scientist wants a witness to his experiments. The vacationer desires a travel companion. The singular diner brings the company of a paper, a novel, an animal companion, a TV or a phone to the table. The notion of celebrating the events of our lives in isolation is like the dead sound of one hand clapping.
Tom Hanks starred in a movie titled Castaway. It tells the story of a man stuck on a deserted island after his plane crashes in the Pacific. His eventual companion is a volleyball that washes up on the beach. He paints it a face. He names it Wilson. He talks to it. He is heartbroken when he loses it. Both children and adults may seek imaginary friends; alone is only marginally acceptable.
While there are, and probably always will be, adults who seek the isolation of the plains, forests, deserts, or mountains, none of us began that way. Our very conception took a small group of two. Our subsequent infant years required at least one other to make our survival possible. And, while the development that comes with years steadily increases the potential for survival in isolation, that same development is made more effective by the relationships we develop through the groups we belong to.
The very fact that we are here discussing the individual vis-a-vis the group is indicative of the character of our human condition. Sure, we have classes and committees and congregations but in what sense are they groups and, in another sense only a gathering of individuals? Consider a time when one’s identity was most commonly determined by the group(s), and only the groups to which one belonged.
The most baffling, elusive, yet in many ways the most significant dimensions of the medieval mind were invisible and silent. One was the medieval man’s total lack of ego. Even those with creative powers had no sense of self. Each of the great soaring medieval cathedrals, our most treasured legacy from that age, required three or four centuries to complete. Yet we know nothing of the architects or builders. They were glorifying God. To them their identity in this life was irrelevant. Noblemen had surnames, but fewer than one percent of the souls of Christendom were wellborn. Typically, the rest—nearly 60 million Europeans—were known as Hans, Jacques, Sal, Carlos, Will, or Will’s wife, Will’s son, or Will’s daughter. A World Lit Only by Fire – 21 – William Manchester
The group and the individual are necessarily in opposition. This is true, not in a physical way but in a conceptual way; and our concept of ourselves as individuals or as members of a group is governed by many factors. Think about just one. The people of medieval times lived in an era when many of the human inter-connections available in the past were no longer available. The Roman empire was gone, and along with it the many lines of communication which they had built up over the centuries. By medieval times Roman roads and common languages had largely been forgotten. Spanish, French and Italian are all Latin-based languages. They became distinctive when they developed in relative isolation from one another. Communities living in isolation was characteristic of the times.
If war took a man even a short distance from a nameless hamlet, the chances of his returning to it were slight; he could not identify it, and finding his way back alone was virtually impossible. Each hamlet was inbred, isolated, unaware of the world beyond the most familiar landmark: a creek, or mill, or tall tree scarred by lightening.
Their anonymity approached the absolute.
The Roman Empire had dated everything from the founding of the city of Rome.
Medieval men were rarely aware of what century they were living in. There was no reason they should have been. There are great differences between everyday life in 1791 and 1991, but there were very few between 791 and 991. 21-22
The predominance of a group-mentality as found among medieval peoples was a far cry from the cosmopolitan character of imperial Rome and its inhabitants. The Romans wielded more than political and military power. They were instrumental in spreading Greek language and art. Koine Greek was the common language of the empire even though it did not exclude the local languages. The engineering marvels of roads, aqueducts, circus’, temples, and public baths were a hallmark of Roman presence even in the farthest reaches under their control. Roman Law was consistent and uniformly (more or less) applied in all subject lands. The Mediterranean Sea, or Mare Nostrum (Our Sea), was an ever-constant pathway which contributed to both commerce and the maintenance of power.
In an environment such as this, groups and individuals could both be prominent. When the Acts of the Apostles records Peter’s speech in Jerusalem on Pentecost we are told that fifteen regions of the Empire were represented. This was undeniably the situation in Rome as well, but probably on steroids. People traveled. They shared their knowledge, culture, and art as well as commerce.
In Imperial Rome the number of people and their distribution across a broad geographic area were among those factors that effected the balance between individual identity and group identity. We can reasonably suppose that both viewpoints necessitated that those known for their notoriety would be known by name (as individuals) because they could not be known by most from personal recognition. Conversely, when a group is small and isolated everyone personally would know everyone. Furthermore, when there is remarkably little turnover in the people of one’s village or hamlet (as was the case in medieval times), those with a unique character of one sort or another would simply be absorbed as part of the whole, the group.
The dissolution of the Roman Empire did not take place over a period of weeks, months, years, or decades, but over a period better measured by centuries. And while the environment of the Classical Age may have had its share of chaos and fear, that was nothing compared to what followed. The relative peace of the Empire yielded to multiple barbarian invasions. The invincible Roman army was found lacking in its ability to defend against the intruders. The organization imposed by government wavered and broke under the strain of these violent changes. The disruption of commerce and the increasing isolation of communities would demand that these communities become more self-sufficient. Such is made clear in our own dystopian books and movies.
As you may deduced from this information, there was and is a constant tension between individuality and group identity. That tension would cause a dramatic shift in the prominence of each under the pressure of chaos.
Historically the two have not always been in balance even though the preservation of humanity demands both. The broad circumstances of our times, our culture and our personal lives all have a profound influence in determining when the two will be in balance and when one or the other will dominate.
With exceptions, the dominance of group identity prevailed in much of Europe for the centuries encompassed by the era we call Medieval. It was not until the period known today as the Renaissance that things began to change. The shift was not uniform throughout Europe. Some historians say it began in the 15th Century while others think it began a century or more earlier. In any case, most agree that the city of Florence in central Italy was where this awakening originated, gradually spreading across the European continent from there.
There are several notable people from the Classical Period and before whom we know by name – in many cases by first name only. Alexander, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Nero, Constantine, and others. We know them because they were people whose individuality stood out for one reason or another in a time when individuality and group identity both were in ascendance and in balance. Such was not the case during the following centuries – the ones we call Medieval. The artists, scientists, politicians, explorers, and philosophers of the time, such as there were, are still largely un-recognized.
In the years leading up to the European Renaissance troubles around Greece and Asia Minor prompted scholars from those areas to move to safer territory. That meant moving west. They brought with them the Latin and Greek works from the Classical Period which had been lost to the West during the years of the barbarian invasions. All aspects of the arts and intellectual inquiry came to be affected, even those in the practical arts. Perspective in painting was re-discovered as well as the re-found skill of making concrete.
The arts, including those in the practical fields fared well with the introduction of this Classical knowledge. So too did philosophy with the introduction of the well-ordered works of the Greeks and others. The sciences, however, found themselves struggling with what they had been taught and the discoveries that were then-currently being made. Aristotle’s teaching that earth, air, fire and water were the four basic elements didn’t hold up with the scientific revelations of the time. Neither did the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe around which all else revolved. Battlelines quickly formed with science on one side and Revelation or revealed truth on the other. When the dust finally settled, men realized that the dispute had been both inappropriate and unnecessary; but that would take more than just a few years.
Those who put their ‘faith’ in Revelation had centuries of tradition and religious belief on their side. Those who put their ‘faith’ in science initially had little more than their observations to support them. Moreover, the principal men of science were themselves men of religious faith and they, too, had come to maturity believing as their opposition did. It was inevitable that a conflict would arise and that men would struggle to find a route out of the dilemma. That didn’t happen until the mid-sixteen hundreds and the proposed solution itself caused turmoil.
The upshot of the many developments through the centuries of the Renaissance cannot be over-emphasized. There were two, however, whose introduction would have the greatest impact on the subject of our present discussion. The first was the creation of moveable type accompanied by the simultaneous development of the printing press. Suddenly ideas could be disseminated across broad areas without the tedious and expensive hand-copying which had been necessary before. Moreover, reading could be done alone. The first book printed was the Bible and it was printed in the vernacular rather than Latin. In the past Sacred Scripture had been solely the province of the Church. Now it was available to any who could read.
Reading was linked to the rise of individualism because, before print, reading was often a group event in which one person would read to a group. With print, both literacy and the availability of texts increased, and solitary reading became the norm.
The second was a small philosophical work with a long title: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences. Plus the Dioptric, Meteors, and Geometry, Which are Essays in This Method.
The contribution Gutenberg made to the spread of knowledge has already been mentioned. The contribution of Descartes is of equal, if not greater importance but probably not as generally well known because Descartes was a philosopher. Yet, Cartesian philosophy has profoundly affected human perception even down to our current day.
Descartes could be considered, as one current philosopher puts it, “the father not just of modern philosophy but, in important respects, of modern culture—of modern Western culture and later, through export of its ideas, of much of modern world culture,” and the Discourse on the Method is the first reason why. This little essay has been called “the dividing line in the history of thought. Everything that came before it is old; everything that came after it is new.”
How and why is this true? Once again, we are looking at the tension between individuality and group identity. As we have seen, the Medieval period in Europe had firmly established the pre-eminence of the group.
People saw their identity defined by the group or groups they belonged to. As the Renaissance evolved and Europeans interacted on a much broader scale than they had in centuries, individuals were coming prominently to the fore. Nevertheless, the group mentality was only slowly pushed aside. People still shared a common faith and, with it, a common attitude toward order in the universe.
The Discourse on the Method was problematic at the time for three reasons. First, it challenged the understanding of previous centuries which had given Divine Revelation prominence in attempts to understand anything and everything. Second, it was unclear exactly when and where the use of the Method was appropriate. Third, it disrupted the balance between individuality and group identity through its well known and most fundamental claim: “I think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum).”
Discourse on the Method is written in the first person. A byproduct is that one of the world’s great works of philosophy is also one of the most readable. And it serves as an appropriate launching point for a new era in which the focus is on the individual.
What had begun a few centuries earlier as a more expansive way of viewing and exploring the world now gave way to a profoundly new and different way of conducting that exploration. The insularity of Medieval people had already given way in the arts, culture and science. With Descartes the very mode of thought would shift and along with it the prevailing balance between individuality and group-identity. “I think, therefore I am.” This was far more than a mere motto. Rather, it encompassed the essence of Descartes’ philosophy.
I -- I Think. -- I Am.
Central to Descartes proposition was the I, the Individual.
The ascendance of individual identity over group identity took a profound step forward with the introduction of Cartesian thought. It would take an even greater step with the European settlement of North America. The explorers of earlier centuries were driven by wonder and curiosity. Those who came as settlers were, in many cases, driven by the need to separate themselves from the groups to which they had been attached or surrounded, to isolate themselves from the bitterness and war which had ruled Europe. Once in America, that shift in attitude would be reinforced by the vast expanse of territory that lay before them. By the time of the American Revolution the ‘divine right of kings’ would be supplanted by ‘all men are created equal . . . with inaliable rights.’
The principles which would be verbally expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution had their roots in the Renaissance of Europe and it was largely because of circumstance that they initially took form in America. Consequently, the nations of Europe would soon follow even as the tribalism of the Medieval centuries continued to hold a notable grip.
It took real pioneers to willingly engage the ‘New World;’ and at first those making the journey stuck together. But it wasn’t long before open areas would beckon, and individuals struck out on their own. Thus the beginning of the ‘self-made man.’ Many who chose that rout became legends; and once more individual identity would reign supreme over group identity.
Today, identity as defined by the individual still rules. You can find it everywhere. Self-help, self-actualizing, self-asserting – all these topics have generated notable contributions to a new section in libraries and bookstores. The mythic pioneer and romanticized self-made man have generated their own realities; and in several ways this ascendance has begun to cause problems. Individual rights now take precedence over the common good. As observed by the Pew Research Center, people are increasingly valuing individuality and personal spirituality over organized religion; though there is evidence that things are shifting yet again.
The Biblical Perspective
The best-known stories from the Old Testament might lead one to think of spirituality as a me-and-God issue. After all, what do we read in the Scriptural accounts but Abraham and God, Isaac and God, Jacob and God, Moses and God, King David, and God? The call of many Old Testament prophets likewise contributes to this impression. But such interpretation misses a key element: God is always looking toward a people.
Abraham is called; but the divine promises made to him concern a people. “I will make of you a great nation . . . .” (Genesis 12:2) “All the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.”
Moses is called; but the reason he is called is because of the plight of the people. “I have seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt . . . I have heard their cry. . . . I know their sufferings. I have come down to deliver them . . . . Come, I will send you to Pharaoh.“ (Exodus 3:7-8) Strength and guidance are given to the Judges, again for the purpose of dealing with the enemies of God’s people. So too with the Kings. In fact, it must be remembered that the King was more than just the ruler, the one in charge. He was the embodiment of the people. Even in Christian times such was the case. Entire pagan nations or tribes were baptized because the king became a Christian.
Salvation was from within the group.
The following passage from Jeremiah gives insight into the thinking of the time as well as helping to understand the divine plan.
"Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, and declare it in the islands afar off; say, 'He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.' For the LORD has ransomed Jacob, and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him.” (Jeremiah 31:10-12)
Recall the incident from the book of Genesis (Genesis 32:28) in which Jacob’s name is changed to ‘Israel.’ Recall as well that Jacob’s (Israel’s) twelve sons, who are the origin of the twelve tribes, are the one’s who go to Egypt and whose posterity are later enslaved. These are the people who will be brought out from slavery and into the Promised Land at the hand of God working through Moses. Yet, when we get to the passage from Jeremiah (and many similar passages in both this and other books of the Old Testament) we find this anomaly. The nation of Israel is composed of twelve tribes each with thousands of people, but the Lord refers to them in the singular. In its own way it is saying the same thing as Paul: “The members of the body, though many, are one body. . . .” Clearly the emphasis is on the group rather than upon the individual members within it. But the ‘group’ in the. Old Testament is not just a collection of individuals – more on that later.
There was, of course, a shift when Jesus came. The Gospels offer accounts of several encounters between Jesus and individuals where the individual is freed from sin, either present or past, through their interaction with the God-man. There are also incidents where Jesus will say: “Your faith has saved you.” But both Paul and John will validate the Old Testament truth: Salvation is within the group!
In the Old Testament the members of the group were those living in the Kingdom of Israel. In the New Testament the members of the group are those living in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament the ‘group’ identified are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the Twelve tribes. It is not coincidental that Jesus chose twelve as Apostles and that the remaining eleven recognized the need to complete their number when Judas left. Now the ‘group’ is identified as the descendants in faith of the new Twelve. This New Kingdom is not an ordinary Kingdom. Paul explains this teaching about salvation being within the group throughout his many letters.
“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ.” (I Corinthians 6:15)
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all. The members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.” (I Corinthians 12:12)
“Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” (I Corinthians 12:27)
This teaching from Paul has endured through the ages, not because it is a good image, but because it is a remarkable truth. We are saved by being joined in the group; and Paul identifies that group as those who are part of the body of Christ.
John places this same teaching within the context of the Last Supper, the Passover Supper. Consider the following three passages:
“Now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:11)
“That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:21)
“The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:22-23)
Certain phrases are highlighted in bold because of their pertinence to our present discussion. Now it might be tempting to minimize Jesus’ statements or interpret them as mere hyperbole. Certainly, some have done so with Paul’s statements on the Body of Christ (it’s just an analogy they say) but that is harder to do with the words we find in John. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are distinct yet One. That is our faith. So too with us. We are not to lose our individuality even as we really, actually, and truly become members of the Body of Christ or become one as the Father, Son and Spirit are one. In fact, our identity will be retained even as we become perfectly one.
It is worth directing our attention at this point to the parameters we set earlier for the kind of ‘Group’ we are talking about. You will recall that the first criterion was a shared or communal sense of belonging to the group. That factor is easily perceived in the lives of both the Old Testament Jews as well as among Christians. With some, that sense of belonging may be more significant than it is for others. For some, it may even be an unwanted character of their lives. But there is no doubt that the Israelites of the Old Testament identified as the Chosen People, the People of God, the sheep whom the Lord would shepherd. Likewise, those who identified as Christians in the New Testament did so even to the point of persecution and death. But this parameter alone is insufficient.
The second criterion for group or collective identity is generally understood to be an interactive and shared definition. In other words, one’s identity as a Jew or a Christian cannot be determined by the individual alone but only by the members of the group who share the essential element of that group identity. For the Old Testament Jew that identity would have focused on the Covenant with the Lord at Mt Sinai. “I will be your God and you will be my people.” This was the essence of what defined them as a group. That has since changed as the identifying factors of lineage and culture have become more prominent. Furthermore, collective identity is only formed upon the group member’s acceptance of the identity. Society may continue to insist upon the identification of a particular member with a particular group even when the individual denies it. This is not to say, however, that God may have a different point of view on the matter. After all, one’s rejection of one’s biological family does not change the biological fact.
The third criterion for group identity is that there is an emotional recognition or personal investment which the members share. This is a telling point in our proposition.
The descendants of Jacob’s sons – the twelve tribes – were distinct enough to be identified by their tribal names both when they left Egypt and when they entered the Promised Land. Check any map of the area drawn up to show the then current territories and you will find the tribal designations attached to specific areas. However, the intent was not that they be distinct, independent states. Rather, they were to act as consorts to one another. They were to be invested in one another. Each tribe was to contribute to the well-being and protection of the other both on an individual and tribal basis. The tribal command is most clear in the two books that describe the early years after the Israelites enter the Promised Land. The Old Testament books of Joshua and Judges both call for profound cooperation at the tribal level and describe the tribal failure in this regard. The tribal requirement was pre-empted when the Lord gave them a King; but the Lord’s expectation did not go away. The Prophets’ complaints about the failure to provide for widows and orphans continually pointed to this expectation at the individual level.
The command for a personal investment becomes even more explicit in the New Testament. First, it should be noted that Jesus does not abandon what has gone before; it was not by accident that he chose The Twelve. The Apostles themselves understood this when, after the betrayal by Judas, they elected to choose another to make their number complete. Jesus, however, takes the commission one step further: “... ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second [commandment] is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31)
In John’s Gospel, in the context of Jesus prayer at the Last Supper, the inherent meaning of the command is brought to a transcendent level. First, he tells the Apostles directly, and says it three times:
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” (John 13:34)
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)
“This I command you, to love one another.” (John 15:17)
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The material existence of the individual is limited by what it is. It can change. It can grow. It can become more than it presently is or, within limits, different than what it presently is. While the individual can partake of and observes concepts and thoughts and ideas, ultimately, if those concepts, thoughts and ideas are retained they become unique to that individual. What the individual takes in materially, for better or for worse, does not change the essence of that individual. So too with self-regarding behaviors, the individualistic identity.
Whatever components you may cite as essential aspects of the individual are necessarily limited in potential. Consequently, even that individual vision of the environment, the world, the universe, or the cosmos is similarly limited in potential. This is not a new thought. Not so long ago, in the world of business literature, it was discussed as ‘one’s rising to their level of incompetence.’
When one views the world with the notion that I, as an individual, should not be troubled by what is not me, I have necessarily limited myself.
· The Communion of Saints
NOTES FOR A COR GUIDEBOOK
Potential additional points to consider for this brochure:
Why a small group?
· Grouping for social/business reasons
· Family as group
· Men as group
· Necessity of community vs individuality
Why should men pray together?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Salvation is from the group.
Spiritual Leadership
Group vs Committee - purpose and difference
Bonding as men of faith
Cor Groups
a. Meaning
b. Purpose
c. Necessity
Forming a group
What to expect in the early stages.
CORE
Apple Core – The inner region of a fruit that surrounds and protects the seeds.
Planet Core – The innermost layer of the planet. Critical in determining the planet’s character.
Argument Core – That part of an argument which is foundational to the argument presented.
Muscular Core – That group of midsection muscles which stabilize both spine and pelvis.
COUER
French for heart
COR
A slang term that originated in the British cockney accent often used as a shortened form of “god.”
DISCUSSION
Does humanity need a savior? Do I need a savior?
What kind of savior is needed? What do I or the world need to be saved from?
Was it ever possible for one who is only a man to be a savior?
What kind of ‘being’ do I think of when I think of God?
I made known to them your name, and I will make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them." (John 17:26)
The focus is on the identity of the group-as-a-whole rather than on the individual association with the group. For group identity to be meaningful it must be held by more than one person. There must be a common or shared sense that one belongs to a group. There must also be a relationship among the members; and ultimately some emotional connection as well.
GROUP/COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
a. A shared sense. Of belonging to a group. This is a social concept or phenomenon and so, constructed not empirically defined.
b. Alberto Melucci in Nomads of the Present: Collective identity is an interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals (or even groups at a more complex level) and concerned with the orientation of action and the field of opportunities and constraints in which the action takes place.
c. There is a developing process to the development of collective identity.
a. Cognitive Definition: The formulation of a cognitive framework concerning goals, means, and environment of action.
b. Active Relationship: the activation of relationships among participants.
c. Emotional Investment: Emotional recognition between individuals.
Pre-existing social structure and conditions shape a person’s identity, which in turn, interacts with others and shapes the new and emerging social structure.
Definition? An individual’s cognitive, moral, and emotional connections with a broader community, category, practice or institution. The collective identity of the group often expressed through the group’s cutures and traditions.
Amphictyony
Love one another.
Example
A collective identity is only formed upon the group member’s acceptance of the identity.
INDIVIDUALISM/INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY
a. Promotes realizing one’s goals and desires, valuing independence and self-reliance, and advocating that the interests of the individual should gain precedence over the state or social; group, while opposing external interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government.
b. Makes the individual the focus. And sob starts with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation.
c. Related to possessing individual characteristic(s); sometimes associated with artistic and bohemian interests and lifestyles where there is a tendency towards self-creation and experimentation.
d. Cultural individualism is strongly correlated with Capitalism as evidenced by first world countries being the most individualistic in the world and the most collectivistic cultures being economically developing.
e. Ruth Benedict in her book: The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Societies and groups can differ in the extent to which they are based upon predominantly ‘self-regarding’ (individualistic and/or self-interested) behaviors, rather than ‘other-regarding’ (group-oriented, and group, or society-minded) behaviors.
f. That government which governs best governs least.
g. Extreme is found in positions of individualistic anarchism.
h. Individualism is sub-divided into multiple categories according to the degrees to which they insist on self-interest over outside control.
Jesus spoke to crowds but, as noted throughout the Gospels he spent a significant portion of his time forming the Twelve. Seen me; seen the Father.
To you is given to know. Mt 13:11, 13:17, Mark 4:11, 4:34
Briggs, Asa and Burke, Peter (2002) A Social History of the Media: from Gutenberg to the Internet, Polity, Cambridge, pp. 15–23, 61–73.
Edit out specifics
 | A guest post by
|