A kinder, gentler, Borg?

Sunday, the pastor was talking about what human beings need to thrive.  One of those things is relationships - ones that go beneath the surface communication we have with co-workers, neighbors, shirt-tail relations, etc.  We need to be known, and we need to be loved.  And in order to be loved fully, we need to be known fully.  In this way, we are assured that we are loved IN SPITE OF our flaws, and not simply because we've hidden them.  This can only happen in committed, trust-filled relationships.

He went on to talk about the way our culture likes to put off making commitments in relationships, because committed relationships tie us to other people and cut off other options.  I found myself relating well to this idea.  I prefer options to commitments.  But at the same time I know that committed relationships are beneficial and redeeming.  I just tend to run from them.

Have you heard the term "web of relationships"?  That, to me, is not a helpful metaphor.  I think of committed relationships as a spider web - sticky, entrapping, immobilizing.  It's like that scene in Lord of the Rings, where Frodo is caught in the web of Shelob, the giant spider.  Frodo is trying to do what's right, but in doing so he's caught, and can no longer move independently and freely - instead he's dependent on someone else to rescue him, to free him from the confines of this web.  Unfortunately for me, this is the default setting on how I have seen relationships, from grade school onward.  I need a total reset on this topic.  I need a new metaphor to work with.

But what metaphor?  Maybe, um... a "network" of relationships?  Network is not a threatening term like "web" is.  I put files out on the network at the office, where I can share them with others.  J1 is really good at networking for career advancement purposes.  J2 has a vast network of friends.  D has fewer but deeper, more committed ones she goes to regularly.  You can plug in to a network, and unplug, too, right?  Yes, there may be a network administrator that sets some rules of use, but is that so bad? Seems benign enough.  I could sort of see small groups at church in this way..   maybe..  like networking..  especially if you aren't locked in to them forever.  But how committed are unpluggable relationships like this?  Not very.  Doesn't the network really need to be deeper, stronger?

Ah, but what about a network like "the Borg"?  Remember that Star Trek movie, First Contact, where the main enemy for the episode was this network which expanded only by assimilation?  Here each person was assimilated into the collective consciousness called the Borg, such that all their unique talents and perspectives were added to the network, so that the network benefited, but in return they lost their individuality.  They simply became automatons doing the bidding of the collective.

Assimilation like that in a church setting is something I have experienced in the past - where you join, and in joining you are expected to behave, to present yourself publicly in a certain way in order to be part of the group.  You are expected to think and speak, and deal with life's difficulties, in a certain way - the way the collective says you should.  And if you try to deviate behaviorally, theologically, or express doubt in the collective wisdom, you are reprimanded for it.  I fear this every bit as much as being caught in a spider's web of relationships.

But couldn't there be a kinder, gentler, version of the Borg?  Couldn't the church preserve our individuality in the midst of deep connectedness?  It seems that this is what Saint Paul was driving at in 1 Cor. 12-14: the importance of each one's unique talent and perspective, but within the context of a dynamic, spiritually living organism called "the Body of Christ".  In my reading of the passage, no one is expected to give up their individuality when becoming a part of the church, rather a recognition of that uniqueness is what Paul teaches.   Still, there is an expectation of some baseline commitments and behavior, for the greater good - there is a sense in which the collective must work cohesively, cooperatively, implying a need for mutual submission and committment.

I get this, at least in principle.  I support the need for community, for committed relationships within it, and for a more corporate reading of the New Testament.  But it's still a really, really difficult thing for me to warm up to.  I need a better metaphor for committed relationships in community than a web (Shelob) or a network (Borg).  There must be something else that I can use to get more comfortable with the notion of commitment within a community.  And sitting here at home on Thanksgiving, sick as a dog from a seasonal rhinovirus, I'm not sure "members of the same body" is the best one, either.  I'm feeling real familiar right now with the notion that when one of the parts of the body hurts (in my case, my rib cage and throat from hard coughing), the whole body suffers.  Ugh.

I just can't think of a better metaphor than that one.   Yet.