|
|
Email
your suggestions,
disagreements or any
other comments and
they will be responded
to without delay
|
No broadband? |
|
|
W hen Sheila Pritchard visited an outback cattle station in the north of Australia, she was struck by endless miles of country without a fence in sight. She asked the rancher how this could be and was told, "Out here we dig wells instead of building fences" [1]The lesson was simple. In a land where water is crucial to life, cattle will be attracted to a well. They learn to stray no more than a certain distance from their source of life. During recent Chapter discussions [in April, 2006] about membership, I couldn't help recalling this story. It seemed to me that as we wrestled with the matter we might be missing an absolutely critical issue. We were debating whether or not an Associate Member who is married could become a full member of the Society. That would require changing our Constitution, which says where the fences and gates are, and who may come through them. And, of course, constitutions generally say nothing about how to dig wells and fill them with water. What, I asked myself, would happen to SSM if we ceased focusing on fences and instead put our energy into being a well of living water? I couldn't help thinking of the prophetic vision of some decades ago which tried to establish a forerunner to what is now the Well at Willen [at Milton Keynes, England] - a vision based on the same principle as the Australian outback ranch. Alas, that vision perished when fearful members of the Society hastily built fences against female intruders. But, as any farmer knows, fences must be vigilantly maintained. As those inside the fences died off, fewer were available to replace fence posts and repair broken wire. So those fences have since fallen and women may now be full members of the Society. And still we're in what appears to be terminal decline. The lesson is clear, I think. Merely taking down fences isn't enough. Unless we also offer the water of life there is no intrinsic reason why anyone should be attracted to us. The matter can be put another way. I have witnessed many a discussion about poverty, celibacy and obedience. A constant theme is that they are essential to the religious life proper. I suspect that this may not be entirely correct. Perhaps we might ask if they are in truth means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. Poverty as not knowing where your next meal will come from is not an attractive state. Nor is it intrinsically attractive to be celibate unless one has little or no sex drive. Obedience as absolute obedience to some authority or other only alienates, as SSM and other communities have discovered to their cost . In short, who in their right mind would be attracted to these three counsels? They are dry wells. Rules to protect them are like fences which define who is in and who is out. They are designed to repel outsiders and control insiders. I suspect that we in SSM have been myopically focused for many years on fences rather than on wells of living water. Never far from the surface of everything Herbert Kelly [the founder of SSM] said and wrote was the conviction that the religious life is about giving oneself - not about poverty, celibacy and obedience. With typically Victorian expression, for example, he thought that "really fine chap" and a "rotter" differ in that
He stressed over and over again that the measure of our effectiveness is, and always will be, the measure of our giving. Poverty, celibacy and obedience are ways of giving up, not the giving up itself. To revert to the metaphor of a well, it doesn't matter much if the well has a fine setting, or if it is sturdily built, or if those who tend it are properly qualified. Such a well no doubt attracts passing tourists who will contribute their pennies. What really matters is that
a well contain water. |
