To give some balance I try to list what I think was good and what bad in the community.
Good was:
- everyone encouraged and allowed to contribute - teaching that every Christian is called to serve God and people, not just the clergy.
- Bible-study, knowing the right teaching valued and practiced (but probably too strict concerning some details and too demanding for mentally weaker ones)
- meeting often to strengthen, encourage/admonish and serve each other, sharing our lives (but in expense of all other relationships)
- relationships, loving of every brother/sister the same way was valued, building relationship with every brother, not only symphatic ones.
- Bible-study, knowing the right teaching valued and practiced (but probably too strict concerning some details and too demanding for mentally weaker ones)
- meeting often to strengthen, encourage/admonish and serve each other, sharing our lives (but in expense of all other relationships)
- relationships, loving of every brother/sister the same way was valued, building relationship with every brother, not only symphatic ones.
- evangelization encouraged and practiced (the content of message was not always ok: community-centered instead of Jesus-centered)
- devotion, giving all our life (but sometimes extreme)
- devotion, giving all our life (but sometimes extreme)
- discipline, balance between bodily and spiritual: daily walks, rest after work/before common time (only too uniform, for all the same)
...
Bad was:
- discouraging personal time, making too dependant on each other instead of God. (I mean, it was seen negative, when somebody didn't join common activities, but wanted to be alone)
- making our life-style as the only possible for a Christian. Daily meeting and frequent traveling are not affordable in poorer countries and for families with little children. Some may have specific tasks for certain social group (seniors, orphans, homeless, addicts, poor, prisoners, etc). etc.
- making our life-style as the only possible for a Christian. Daily meeting and frequent traveling are not affordable in poorer countries and for families with little children. Some may have specific tasks for certain social group (seniors, orphans, homeless, addicts, poor, prisoners, etc). etc.
- extreme, loveless, dependent-making delimitation/separation form all outsiders, including own family. So they cannot experience our love.
- too exhausting schedule. There were changes for better: walks became shorter, WM topics not at night etc.
- activity as the main measure of endeavoring, bodily weakness sometimes mixed up with little endeavoring
- too exhausting schedule. There were changes for better: walks became shorter, WM topics not at night etc.
- activity as the main measure of endeavoring, bodily weakness sometimes mixed up with little endeavoring
Good theory but bad application
- no hierarchy, 'all are brothers', but the special position of GH (rather according to other's words, I don't have much personal experience of it)
- theoretically allowed to marry (theory about marriage probably insufficient because of lack of practical experience), but in practice forbidding marriage -> making the yoke too hard for several + insincerity
- according to the Apologia we were open, but really closed for justified corrections and learning from people outside
- fighting for holiness together, but sometimes too much dealing with sins, calling too many things a sin, not trusting enough one's self-assessment and God's work in the other - according to the Apologia we were open, but really closed for justified corrections and learning from people outside
2 comments:
Yes, I also see positively, that we didn't have spiritual functionaries. Responsibility (also spiritual) was pretty well distributed. Actually our community WORKS in its own way.
Several church-leaders, who I spoke about this matter, don't want to believe, that everybody could be active, when there is no chief person at the head.
GH's exclusion has set a precedent, that nobody can feel himself there very comfortably as a 'great leader'. If one exceeds certain limit of community's standard (which clearly supports equality), he will be overthrown sooner or later.
This does but not mean, that there aren't factual spiritual leaders, who are looked up to. I myslef have heard several times in the community arguing: "But Josef said so..." And when I smiled once a bit ironically in this case, it was seen as a bad attitude. Josef is 'an elder' and must be therefore treated with respect.
I remember one case in Hungary, in KB, when one sister said with admiration: "Isn't it luck, that Josef didn't become a cardinal!"
Yes, it was really hard to imagine Josef as a catholic cardinal, I thought then. Because he was at that moment quickly scrabbling up the rope, which hung on the ceiling.
Post a Comment