Autonomy and Covenant

Theologically, I don’t think I can separate the two. Autonomy is defined by identity in relationship with others. A covenant is defined through a relationship between two autonomous partners. In a sense, autonomy and covenant defines where one stops and another begins yet focuses on where they connect. I will first focus on autonomy.


Autonomy comes from the Greek “from auto "self" + nomos, "law": one who gives oneself his/her own law” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy). Autonomy means having good boundaries. Boundaries allow us to know who we are in relation to others around us. The Hazelden Foundation identifies “the need for boundaries physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.” The Foundation states that “Boundaries ensure that our behavior is appropriate and keep us from offending others. When we have healthy boundaries, we also know when we are being abused. A person without boundaries will not know when someone is physically, emotionally, or intellectually violating them” (1).

In Eric Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development eight stages are laid out that shows how a healthily developing human should pass from infancy to late adulthood. The second stage is “Autonomy vs. Shame & Doubt (2 to 3 years)” In this stage the child begins to answer what is and is not under their control and where they stop and others begin (Erikson 24). If parents encourage self-sufficient behavior, toddlers develop a sense of autonomy; a sense of being able to handle many problems on their own. But if parents demand too much too soon and refuse to let children perform tasks of which they are capable, or shame the child at early attempts at self-sufficiency, children may instead develop doubt about their ability to handle problems (Erickson 32).

Taking these two concepts and smushing them together, I can see how many pastors can shame their congregations; or how those higher up the chain can shame a local pastor. So the UCC is right to seek autonomy. But it is good to note that no one is completely free. We are all bound by our family systems, context, socio-economic status, culture, assumptions, and so on. We are not islands unto themselves, but interconnected beings. I prefer the term “inter-vidual” versus individual. A balance must be struck between the inter-vidual and the larger group that he or she is a part of. I think The UCC Constitution and Bylaws hold this autonomy in balance with the need for covenant.

Covenant is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement” and it comes from the Middle English, from Anglo-French, from present participle of covenir to be fitting. Covenant therefore means “a fitting agreement between two or more autonomous entities.”

When the four streams came together, they each had a particular identity and tradition. They were able to agree upon similarities and yet keep various ID markers in place for local congregations if they wanted it. For example, not every church is high church, or congregational, but each is free to choose what works, or what is fitting, given their context and history. This balances out the autonomy as it helps prevent spiritual abuse that can stem from a rigid system that has itself convinced of perfection, apostolic descent, and over controlling tendencies that result. Covenant also helps to remind the local church that they are not alone.

I think this is an excellent model. It allows for self-expression yet keeps this expression from harming others. It allows for creativity within reason. Speaking as an artist, I like this model because if one has complete freedom the canvas remains blank. Given some boundaries, some theme, some restriction, the artist then can paint within or rejecting what has been defined.

References

Erikson, Erik H. Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: International Universities Press, 1959.

Hazeldon Foundation. “What are Boundaries” CPE Handout. Copyright 1988.

Merriam-Webster.com: “Autonomy” and “Covenant” searches

United Church of Christ. The Constitution and Bylaws, 2005 Edition. Pilgrim Press, 2005.

A Drastic Re-Write

Thank you to all who have helped in the crafting of this statement. I knew the old one wasn't where i needed to go... but after my advisor gave some tips, i have come up with the following. First a few words on the statement from my advisor:

When you go to write your statement, remember who your audience is: a search committee or employer. And remember that you are writing to try to express your own personal understanding of ministry and your calling to it. Some of us believe that pastors are shepherds who guide a flock (from behind or before, but either way- pastors lead). Some of us focus on empowerment of laity and believe we are teachers primarily. Some of us believe the church is primarily about: worship, evangelism, good stewardship, social justice, biblical interpreting, building community etc and so on. Although "the church" may be about all of those things and many more, your personal ministry should have some kind of vision and although you may try to "do it all", you probably are more passionate about some things more than others. If you care about bringing people to a life of faith- then emphasize Evangelism in your statement and explain what that might look like if you were to work with a group of people.

and now:

Ministry for me is about intentionally stepping in and caring for others and something larger than yourself. This means ministering TO as well as being ministered BY others. This is the core of the theology put forth by Jesus, namely that life, at its best, is a feedback loop, and relationships are key. Even though relationships can get messy, the only way to know one’s self is to be in relationship with others. I hope to be a minister who empowers and guides others to fully enter into relationship with others and become a people of covenant and autonomy.

To do this, my ministry will focus on five goals, listed below. These are not my only goals, but the ones about which I feel most passionately.

• To bring all religions into a mutually enriching dialogue. When we seek to understand other denominations and even other faith-traditions, we have a sharper focus on our own beliefs. We also respect those people who differ from us, and this respect emphasizes humanity over doctrine. I believe this is a good step toward the UCC’s motto, “That they may all be one.”

• To refuse to make “church-goers” out of my congregants but rather “disciples.” Christianity gets tarnished when its followers parrot beliefs without thinking for themselves. A true follower not only knows what he or she believes but also why.

• To bring a sense of play to the pulpit along with the idea that there is no such thing as secular. We must live in this world. The church, then, becomes the meeting point between this world and the divine. It is both fully secular and fully sacred. I would be mindful of the worldly concerns of the people who attend my church and show the interplay of ever-transmitting divine. Coincidence, after all, is just God choosing to remain anonymous.

• To reach out to people ages 18-30. We’re missing a large segment of the population in our pews. Some may contend that this age group just does not go to church, but my wife and I did, and look where I ended up—in seminary! I would make a push to connect to this neglected age group.

• In my ministry I hope to be welcoming and ready to walk alongside others. I want to meet people where they are and help guide them to where and who they are called to be. I want to create an authentic community that expands, stretches, and moves people in all kinds of ways.