A Conversation with Sally Morgenthaler

New Wineskins: A Conversation with Sally Morgenthaler Great Interview. (HT Dana Ames)

Yet, according to Joseph Myers, in The Search to Belong, the Church doesn't really converse very well. He contends that there are four levels of human interaction, of "conversation." From least intimate to most, they are: public, social, personal, and intimate. The reality is, the church only operates marginally well in one area, and that is public. Even at that level, our public events and services are simply a collection of privatized experiences. They are usually not as communal as a football game. There, the jumbo-tron acts as presider and prompts us to high-five each other or yell at each other across the stadium.

Ironically, the Church thinks it's also good at intimacy. When we can't even do public well, why would we think that we'd be good at the last level? Go figure. Joe Myers points out that human beings can only be truly intimate with spouses and significant others. He contends that what most people are looking for when they join a small group is not intimacy, but interaction on levels two and three, the social and the personal. (An example of the social conversation would be, "Wow, did you hear that Ed's property is being courted by Wal-Mart?" The more personal would sound like, "We just found out that my youngest son has a kidney problem.") True intimacy goes a big step further from the personal. It is the ultimate in vulnerability—an emotional nakedness, if you will. With spouses, it includes physical nakedness. No wonder people don't exactly run to the sign-up table when we have Small Groups Sunday! What we have created in most of our small groups is faux-intimacy, and it sets us up for failure on a grand scale.


Comments

3 responses to “A Conversation with Sally Morgenthaler”

  1. ‘What we have created in most of our small groups is faux-intimacy, and it sets us up for failure on a grand scale.’
    I think this calls it exactly.
    I’ve had a negative reaction to most small groups – because there is an expectation of intimacy where none naturally exists, and it is usually met by a counterfeit form of sharing. Members sometimes share what appear to be intensely personal things, but they choose how they frame them. Genuine relationships don’t seem to work that way at all – what intimacy there is develops over time. It can’t be the product of intentionality.)

  2. “…what intimacy there is develops over time. It can’t be the product of intentionality.”
    Robert Banks points out that the word koinonia in the NT, which we usually translate fellowship, always is connected with relationship emerges from common mission.

  3. ” … relationship emerges from common mission.”
    I think that is the issue – I have trouble describing why the ‘intentional’ group doesn’t work for me. But this seems right. The genuine relationships (that small groups apparently seek) actually grow out of common mission – or maybe cooperation, working together, shared priorities, etc.
    It’s kind of like C.S. Lewis’s comment on friendship in the Four Loves. Solely having the desire to have a friend did not fulfill the criterea needed for friendships to form.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading