The title of this is an expression of my own feelings of dissonance with the O.N.E. convention and that I also felt that last night I was a pastor in Goth disguise (I did not wear any clericals).
The Organization of the Northeast (O.N.E.) as I had mentioned yesterday had its convention last night. It's centerpiece was a community developed plan for one of the local High schools (Senn High School) that was more or less ignored by the Alderman.The Alderman was invited to the convention and did not show up, so the convention was concluded at the Alderman's house.
I am consistently conflicted around these sorts of activist community organizing groups and meetings and actions. Most of what the various organizations that O.N.E. supports or who make up O.N.E. seem to be doing good a necessary work. Also, it does appear that O.N.E. effectively reflects the ethnic diversity of the Uptown, Edgewater and Roger's Park neighborhoods. However, The convention was weird, to me first in that we were divided up into the member organizations to which we supposedly belonged, so I sat with Immanuel, since neither Reconciler nor Holy Trinity are member organizations of O.N.E. This gave to me a sense that I was in the midst of various cooperating factions/groups of various stripes who at times were able to come together and work towards agreed upon goals, but not as the rhetoric of the evening would have me believe "a diverse but unified voice." The presence of politicians was understandable but odd, and their brief "Relational" speeches just left me with political rhetoric, that probably reflects their action in the state and US. congress but to call their remarks and "relational conversation or meeting" was absurd. both because of they simply spoke their propaganda and because there was not time for relating to such a large crowd except to disseminate the appropriate propaganda for the group gathered. Equally odd was the presence of clergy on the stage opposite the politicians. Odd because I really doubt their were many religious people there who came but were unaffiliated with a congregation. I could be wrong but if some large segment of O.N.E. are religious then O.N.E. probably does not reflect the reality of its communities, which would be odd for a community organization. Lastly I was put off by the vague but expected identity of unity that the convention subtly and not so subtly nagged at me to embrace so as to join in the joy of this group of diverse groups. lastly being bussed to the place of the prayer vigil was just a little too organized for my comfort, I did not want to submit in that way to this group. I walked by myself to the prayer vigil. In the end I resisted I think the group mythos and mythology the convention created, in part because I think it is a fable a nice story but not as true as the organizers want it to be.
Of course that experience says as much about me as O.N.E. I am suspicious of groups and taking on the mentality of a group even one I may agree with knowing that there will be points at which I will disagree. I found myself wondering whether or not all the good that the various groups and O.N.E. were doing was done based on the best idea s or philosophies. The part of me that is fairly conflicted about our economic and political system wonders if it is a good thing encouraging people to better themselves and live according to that system. Not that I begrudge anyone the chance to enjoy the benefits I have from the system, but it is a little ironic to me that at least some of the participants desire to or have in some ways opted out or would if they could. I also, am uncomfortable with the grand narratives and there were numerous alluded to including the one of the US as "America". Yes, the mythology of our Nation State loomed mightily in the back ground, a mythology I ceased to believe in before I entered college. My experiences and observations have only increased my suspicion of it.
I would have been comfortable with the convention and my participation in it, if O.N.E. simply saw itself as a place of meeting of diverse groups and people for temporary but on going common goals, and not a place of unification or unity. If "land of opportunity" mythos was not also trumpeted, and rather it saw itself as a movement of continued resistance against the forces of any society that attempt to accumulate power and wealth (though, I understand this as an alternative mythos and may even be uncomfortable with a group that would trumpet it). Then the presence of clergy who are willing to stand up would make more sense to me, but the prayer vigil would not. Rather diverse responses including a prayer vigil for whom prayer is meaningful act while others would choose to respond in ways that would be meaningful to them.
Oh and in the end this all may simply mean I have anarchist tendencies. It maybe that where I connect with our culture is not in these reform movements and groups but in the Goth/Punk resistance against(or apathy) and disillusionment with both mainstream and reform minded groups and mythologies.
If you look at the ONE convention as the perfect enactment of a particular organizing model (which it was, the best I've seen in person I think), that might help in understanding what was happening there, and how it fits or does not fit with the Christian faith. The Midwest Academy has trained most of those ONE organizers to do just what we saw last night: everything from the ONE sign on the podium, to the signs representing each organization present, to the way religious and political representatives were orchestrated. I think the real question for me is whether or not this power-driven organizing model aligns well with the teachings of Jesus. Part of me feels uncomfortable with it, and I couldn't see myself being the sort of organizer who would follow this model as religiously as some do. That said, when we talk about power held by elites, we often say that it is not power itself that is bad but abuse of power. So what about when it is held by communities instead? Marginalized communities at that. Personally, I think I need to come to terms with whether or not that represents the same power concept that makes me squirm a little, or if we are talking about something entirely different.
ReplyDeleteCharity hints at something important. Social Organizing is a specific strategy and school of organization. It does what the ONE convention seems to have done...create enthusiasm and proclaim unity of disparate parts. Some would parallel this with the Body of Christ theology that Paul proclaims in his epistles.
ReplyDeleteSome of the church growth gurus suggest that a community organizing class or six would be good for every pastor to take. The techniques are galvanizing. Well, that's the notion at least. I don't know how well this actually proclaims the Gospel. And I don't know if it is or is not an abuse of relational power. It is interesting, though.
Charity,
ReplyDeleteActually, I'd have to agree, while I am not familiar with the model or the Midwest academy it was evident that it was a well and tightly run ship. The goals and purposes were clear, and it all looked planned and calculated. I am just not sure i agree or am entirely comfortable with the underlying philosophy and ideology of it all. though I am not sure that my discomfort is theological, as much as philosophical.
I think your point about power does get at some of my discomfort. I don't think power is viewed correctly in our economic and political system, so allowing minorities access to that use and conception of power while a good thing if the system will not or cannon\t change, but I think there are other ways of conceiving and using power. So, ya I think I probably fundamentally disagree with the dominant conception and use of power even when it is used by an organization like O.N.E. I'll have to think on this some more.
Tripp,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that both you and charity went to theology, when I was feeling that it was due to my anarchistic tendencies.
ya, I'd have to say that I think Paul is about something very different, though I could also see that the principles at work at the O.N.E. convention are at work in many church settings or at least conversations.
I dislike immensely the creation of enthusiasm and proclamation of unity in this way, so youth group and youth camp, the worst of both in my opinion. I dislike it because it decreases critical thinking and internal loyal opposition. Also, it all just feels so manufactured and a facade. Mainly because I know that I don't and didn't feel the general enthusiasm before going in there and feel myself manipulated by the techniques. i resist the manipulation even if it is supposedly for the good. If there are things to be enthusiastic about one should not need to drum it up. If you do need to do so, then one should allow for the lack of enthusiasm or attempt to address why there isn't enthusiasm the drumming up and creation of it I reject and rebel against.
Granted this is why I am not a community organizer and probably why Reconciler is growing but at a slow rate.
"slow rate"
ReplyDeleteLoyalty happens. And it can be encouraged. Read Peter's sermon at Pentecost. It has a "ra ra!" tone to it. Some even read the Beatitudes that way. That might be a bit of a stretch. Heh.
There's nothing wrong with generating enthusiasm. Sometimes a lack of enthusiasm is not a critical reflection but a symptom of something else. Sometimes people are burdened by a past crisis and need to be encouraged to trust and be enthused again. Yes, this is what I have been working toward. I don't want narcicistic (sp) fanaticism, but enthusiasm and love is a good thing.
So, why would you not wish to be enthusiastic about unity? Tell me more.
Yes, "slow rate" I am when not comparing comfortable with Reconciler's rate of growth and don't know really if it is slow or fast. I'd say appropriate. My point about was really that I find a radical difference between these sorts of organizing models and our approach to Reconciler.
ReplyDelete"Loyalty", has such a bad taste in my mouth. Can't say what I think about that too bound up in that "loyalty" has been questioned because of my ecumenical work.
A singular group enthusiasm created by techniques intended to in a moment create a sense of unity, I always experience as banishing critical thought. I never liked such techniques even as a youth. I suppose I see no difference between that sort of enthusiasm and fanaticism.
As for regaining love and from that love finding one enthused again, I have to say I saw neither love nor the being enthused about the one who is loved. The motivations at O.N.E. were not ones of love at least not overtly. In the body of Christ there is someone to love, in common community organizations what is there to love? the existence of the organization is a machine, pieced together by the best efforts of hopeful human beings. Relationship as a tool, love as a tool, this is what I find objectionable. One can create or seek to create environments where love and relationship can grow, a rally isn't one of them in my opinion. And I have to say I don't see 'Raw, Raw" in Peter's preaching. "Raw, Raw" focuses only on the positive, Peter, Jesus Christian preaching is not just focuses on the positive, it can speak negative things with hope.
Unity isn't necessarily a good thing. Unity can be oppressive, unity can hide the truth. To be enthusiastic about unity in order to assert unity seems backwards. To proclaim unity while dividing people up into their groups seems to me to be a contradiction that was not spoken to. And it left me no place given that I do not belong to Immanuel, and did not belong to any of the organizations there. the unity proclaimed was a lie because it was not as embracing as it claims.
That is perhaps the core of group pumped up enthusiasm for me, I have always felt excluded from the groups that attempt to get me to be enthused about the group. That exclusion comes in part by my simply asking the question why should I be so pumped up about this! Is enthusiasm all "Raw, Raw". What if I don't feel like shouting back, or what if I disagree with what has just been shouted but agree with other parts of what is going on?
So, ya I am conflicted about this, and agree that one needs to be enthused about what or who one loves. I don't love O.N.E. and it didn't woo me, at its convention.