AssemblyBoard

http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/socfact.html

I first read this in 1993, a few months later I left "fellowship." It just happened to be a homework assignment. I wish I could discuss it in more detail but this will have to do.


In chapter 1, the author spends a significant amount of time explaining the dominance of social explanations for beliefs, ect., over individual explanations. Do you see his argument as valid? Explain

    Yes, one example I have long considered is the effects that a corporate gathering can have on an individual, for example, attending a sports event and participating in the tradition of standing “while we sing our National Anthem”
I will admit that in a setting of  thousands of my fellow countrymen I have  experienced an array of emotions. Euphoria, nostalgia  a sense that I am not alone in life, a “collective consciousness” as I spiritually connected with those around me. And yet in an altogether different setting, alone in my garage, if I decide to sing the National Anthem I find little or no experience of emotion! Where did it come from? Durkheim would say it was imposed upon me from society! Another example I would like to discuss is one that I experienced in the church I attended in my youth. In this particular church there was a big emphasis on ‘the corporate gathering of believers”  (attending the meetings) It was during these meetings that the “direction of God” would be “manifested” through the leadership and the collective participation of the church members. The meetings at times were very solemn and serious, women were instructed not to participate verbally (beyond singing) also, their heads were covered. At times individuals (men) would spontaneously pray or start singing to which everyone would automatically join in. During many of these meetings all in attendance would quietly sit and ponder the Lord's voice in a collective manner. The emotions I experienced in these meetings are too many to list. Throughout the meeting the leaders have complete authority to direct at their discretion if a prayer or hymn was appropriate or not. As a young man who regularly attended these meetings I can say yes! These corporate experiences greatly effected my beliefs! They effected my everyday choices in life, who I would marry, where I would work, where I would live, how I would dress, what books I would read, what music I would listen to. Yet if I decided to just sit down by myself and worship on my own I know my experiences would not be a fraction in comparison.

Interesting, Simon. I hope you post more on this observation. For some folks, though, it works the other way at times--their time alone with God is sometimes more moving than being in church. I suppose this is just an anomaly that is irrelevant to social facts.

Yes, very interesting Simon.

 If there is no God then all that makes us what we are is the influence of society and our natural instincts.  In the Assm. God was only known through the social structure of the group and apart from that you couldn't relate to God as an individual.

  The only way to break free from the control of natural instincts and "the social facts" (though in this life I don't think we ever totally experience total freedom) is by discovering a personal and individual relationship with God himself.  God greatly values me as an individual; who I am as a distinct person apart from any kind of other social relationship (be that family, church, etc.).

  In this way my conscience becomes strongly influenced by my personal faith in God and it allows for me to resist social pressures that seek to conform me to their norms.  For many former members it was when they were able to separate God from the group that they were able to leave and accept the social losses.

  "Individual rights", above the rights of the social order (the state), were the Christian foundations of the USA and fought against the then current notion that ones relationship with God was via compliance with society (church and king).

  This verse helped me a great deal with the idea that I must "submit" to social facts that I learned while in the Assm.   "Now, about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers.  He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity."  I Cor. 16:12

   The phrase, "strongly urged" is quite emphatic in the Gr., but Apollos was still, "quite unwilling"---- my kind of guy Apollos; don't let him push you around! ;)  In other words, when confronted by the strong pressure to conform to the urgent social pressures of the Apostle's demands he refused to do so, realizing that only God himself had the authority to demand his submission in this area of life.  You'll also notice that Paul didn't try and pull the ol' Assm. maneuver of claiming authority by demanding Apollos comply.

  Yes, we must submit to government laws and biblical morality, but only because these are God given, not because they are "social facts" that overcome my ability to act as an individual.  Others are directed to "admonish" us when we are out of God's written laws, and this is social pressure for sure, but the intent of this effort is to "recover" our personal relationship with God---- for He alone is the judge and savior.

                                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

   

   

Marc, I understand what you are saying and I understand why but I was hoping to discuss the topic of collective consciouness. Don't you think this deserves investigation?

Simon,

From earliest childhood we observe other people's behavior, listen to what they say, and copy what they do.  In this way we become aculturated.  This includes our language(s), various forms of belief including religious, our loyalties, our food preferences, our expectations of other people, and much more.

Social scientists sometimes claim that since we acquire our religious beliefs in this way, all religious beliefs are simply cultural artifacts and not reflections of any transcendent truth. While it is without question that we do acquire beliefs from our process of aculturation, particularly from the family of origin, it does not follow that all religious beliefs are equal.  In assessing beliefs the real question is not, "How did I come to believe this?".  Rather, it is, "Do I have adequate grounds for this belief?"  In other words, is it true or not.

It does not take much observation of people to notice that some folks are more feeling oriented, and some more thought oriented.  So, some people just continue in whatever their own aculturation process led them to.  Others ask questions and seek answers.  I think that this shows that while "social belief" has some validity, it is not the whole story. Some folks remain nominal Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Christians.  Others seek to enter deeper into the essence of their own traditions.  Still others "jump ship" and move to completely different beliefs, or some position of skepticism.  It seems to me that this shows that there is a definite limit on the power of a group culture to impose beliefs on everyone.

Reagarding emotions in group settings, I think that the common factor is human physiology.  Long ago I noticed that Pentecostal ministers "worked" their audiences in a manner that shared many elements with what I had seen of Adolph Hitler's speeches and public meetings.  The people frequently responded with loud verbal responses in unison. Entirely different subject matter produced very similar behavioral responses in the people. Later I noticed another similarity; People at rock concerts act very much like people in the aforementioned situations.  I wonder if the loudness of the amplified music at these concerts is the causitive factor.

I concluded from this that when people get into group settings and receive certain types of stimuli, such as the affirmation of deeply held beliefs and attitudes, loud rythmic music, especially drum beats, singing or chants in unison, calling out the same response again and again it sets off a physiological reaction in our endocrine systems.  Adreniline starts flowing, the heart rate increases, and if we "give" ourselves to the emotions of the occasion while we produce brain chemicles such as serotonin.  These chemicals produce a sense of euphoria and connectedness with "something greater than ourselves".  In a church meeting, folks seek to "feel the presence of the Holy Spirit".  In political meetings, they want to attain a sense of high purpose and connectedness with a great cause. In a rock concert they just want to "feel the music" and enjoy the "good vibrations".

To me, this just seems to be an aspect of our humanity.  The value factor is in the worthiness of the ideas that are being promulgated or the cause that is being served, not in the goodness or badness of the way we respond to this kind of thing. The fact that worshipping God, attending a political rally, or rocking out with a popular group makes us feel like this is just our humanness doing what it does.  The issue of the worthiness of the cause being served is a different issue entirely.

T. Maddux

Tom, Thank You for your well thought out reply.

  For many years I struggled to stay in the Assembly. My struggles went like this. I enjoyed the worship! I enjoyed the ministry. At times I felt great coviction that God was speaking to me. I had numerous experiences that seem to confirm this. Ministry would speak directly to my heart about the exact same issues I happend to be facing.  And yet when I was alone I would begin to doubt the legitimacy of George, the oraganization, the polity. How could I reconcile the two? How could God be so real in one circumstance and yet obscure in another? 

"Once the assembly has broken up and these social influences have ceased to act upon us, and we are once more on our own, the emotions we have felt seem an alien phenomenon, one in which we no longer recognise ourselves. It is then we perceive that we have undergone the emotions much more than generated them."  Durkheim

                  Ironic that he uses the term Assembly! I think he hits the nail on the head!  It wasn't God! It was men!

Simon,

You said:

I don't think that what Durkehiem said leads one to that conclusion at all.  You are interested in astronomy.  You must know that on a cosmic scale relativity explains the behavior of objects in the cosmos.  Yet on a smaller scale such as travelling from the earth to the moon Newtonian physics works just fine.  On a still smaller scale particle physics explains much.  At an even smaller scale string theory could turn out to be correct.  If it is correct there is a reality underlying even particle physics on an even smaller scale.

All these aspects of reality work together to produce the universe we percieve. They are all present at the same time.  That fact that particle theory explains aspects of the sun's behavior does not mean that it does not relate to other stars according to relativity.

Likewise, just because group behavior effects our emotional life does not mean that nothing else could be a part of the reality of what we experience.

It is quite possible that we are simply designed by our Creator to respond to group worship experiences as we do, but that men have chosen to channel this tendancy into purely secular goals. 

T. Maddux

I think group dynamics is just another truth and reality of the world God created.  It is a tool that, like any tool, may be used for good or bad.

I know some folks in AA who go to meetings every day because they need the power of the group to tell them not to drink today.  It is a deliberate part of their plan that helps them stay sober.

On the other hand, I read/heard of Local Church meetings where the established members would gather around a newcomer saying "Oh, Lord Jesus!  Oh, Lord Jesus" until the newcomer finally let down their reluctance and joined in.  (Encouraging smiles all around).

I think the oft-quoted exhortation in Hebrews not to "forsake the gathering of yourselves together, but encourage one another until and all the more as you see the day approaching" had this dynamics in mind:  Group up, encourage one another to stay faithful to Christ because you aren't going to get much encouragement outside on your own.

Tom said, "I don't think that what Durkehiem said leads one to that conclusion at all."

               Tom,  Durkheim says that we are influenced, formed, motivated by a collective consciousness. I agree with him because of the examples I have given.

  Yes, one example I have long considered is the effects that a corporate gathering can have on an individual, for example, attending a sports event and participating in the tradition of standing “while we sing our National Anthem”
I will admit that in a setting of  thousands of my fellow countrymen I have  experienced an array of emotions. Euphoria, nostalgia  a sense that I am not alone in life, a “collective consciousness” as I spiritually connected with those around me. And yet in an altogether different setting, alone in my garage, if I decide to sing the National Anthem I find little or no experience of emotion! Where did it come from? Durkheim would say it was imposed upon me from society! Another example I would like to discuss is one that I experienced in the church I attended in my youth. In this particular church there was a big emphasis on ‘the corporate gathering of believers”  (attending the meetings) It was during these meetings that the “direction of God” would be “manifested” through the leadership and the collective participation of the church members. The meetings at times were very solemn and serious, women were instructed not to participate verbally (beyond singing) also, their heads were covered. At times individuals (men) would spontaneously pray or start singing to which everyone would automatically join in. During many of these meetings all in attendance would quietly sit and ponder the Lord's voice in a collective manner. The emotions I experienced in these meetings are too many to list. Throughout the meeting the leaders have complete authority to direct at their discretion if a prayer or hymn was appropriate or not. As a young man who regularly attended these meetings I can say yes! These corporate experiences greatly effected my beliefs! They effected my everyday choices in life, who I would marry, where I would work, where I would live, how I would dress, what books I would read, what music I would listen to. Yet if I decided to just sit down by myself and worship on my own I know my experiences would not be a fraction in comparison.


Tom, I find your explanation that "Durkheim is saying, this fits for this situation and this fits for that situation confusing." It sounds like you are becoming a relativist?


Dave, I understand you to be saying, God made us a certain way and we are left (with the tools He has given us) to discern what really is of him and what is men. O.K. I can understand you. But it doesn't make sense to me that God would allow such sincere devoted disciples to be so cruely treated.  O.k. we have been here before.  Guys I really need help with Ch IV!  Which is why I should stay away for awhile!

Simon/Dav,

You said:

A relativist? Hardly. The purpose of my illustration was to point out that the universe is a multi-layered reality.  Why not our experience as well?

We already know that we have both a conscious and an unconscious mind.  So we are multi-layered.  Things go on at more than one level within us.  I believe that there is a spiritual level as well.

To conclude that since we are affected by our group settings that that is the only component of  reality is actually a logical fallacy called "nothing buttery".  My worship experience, etc., is "nothing but" the effect of my surroundings on my psychological being.

Another example: A man's love for his wife is influenced by his sex drive.  No doubt about it.  But can we conclude that  your or my love for our wives is "nothing but" our sex drive.  To do so is to commit the same error.  Sex is only a component of marital love.

The "collective conscious" is only a part of a worship experience.

Tom Maddux

On February 4th, Dav / Simon stated:

For many years I struggled to stay in the Assembly. My struggles went like this. I enjoyed the worship! I enjoyed the ministry. At times I felt great coviction that God was speaking to me. I had numerous experiences that seem to confirm this. Ministry would speak directly to my heart about the exact same issues I happend to be facing.  And yet when I was alone I would begin to doubt the legitimacy of George, the oraganization, the polity. How could I reconcile the two? How could God be so real in one circumstance and yet obscure in another? 

"Once the assembly has broken up and these social influences have ceased to act upon us, and we are once more on our own, the emotions we have felt seem an alien phenomenon, one in which we no longer recognise ourselves. It is then we perceive that we have undergone the emotions much more than generated them."  Durkheim

                  Ironic that he uses the term Assembly! I think he hits the nail on the head!  It wasn't God! It was men!


Dav / Simon, I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Here is my reason why. Although I don't know anything about Durkheim or about any of his writings, I do know that the paragraph you quoted does not completely reflect your experience in the assembly meetings. This is because you are discounting God's Spirit at work in your heart.

When God's word is read and preached upon, God's Spirit works in the heart of the hearers. This will happen even when the messenger is a very corrupt individual. God is not honouring the corrupt messenger, instead, he is honouring His own Word and God is responding to the hearts that are open to His Word.

When you said: "Ministry would speak directly to my heart about the exact same issues I happend to be facing.", that was God's Spirit taking His Words and illuminating your heart to see its application in your life and in your issues.

Personally, I was raised in a brethern assembly. My Dad was an elder. I rarely missed any meetings during my growing up years or during the years of my involvement in the Ottawa Assembly. However, since becoming disabled in 1987, I have gone long stetches of time when I am unable to go to any church meetings.

A set back in my health in the spring of 1991, made it almost impossible for me to attend any chiurch meeting. In the last 17 years, I have only been in a church meeting twice. Both times was "joy unspeakable and full of glory". I can't begin to describe the emotions or the joy of being in the gathering of God's people and hearing the whole congregation singing the familiar hymns and hearing God's Word preached from the pulpit.

However, the inner conviction of God's word to my heart is identical whether I am in a meeting or whether I am alone at home. The word's of a hymn speak to my heart the same whether I am at home alone or in a meeting. The same is also true if it is a small gathering of believers or a large Bible conference.

In the collective gathering there will be a sharing of the joy or conviction that is experienced by others present. Maybe the issue is the need to make a distinction between the collective shared emotions and the individual person's reponse to the inner workings of God's Holy Spirit speaking to their heart.

Hope these ideas help a bit,

Lord bless,

Flora

Tom, you used an illustration of physics and tried to relate it to sociology. So let me see if I understand, "There are numerous scientific explanations that account for how we interpret the universe." So I can interpret my assembly experience in the same-way? 


Flora, you are saying that you have a personal relationship with God "apart from the meetings"  That is great!


    But what people seem to be-avoiding here is the issue of "Collective Consciousness" This phenomenon accounts for the ability of cult leaders, government administrations, advertisers to motivate, mislead, deceive and even destroy peoples lives!

  What is upsetting for some people is, How do they decipher what was really the Lord and what was deception in their Assembly experience?

     

Dear Vandyke,

     Flora is right that continual name changing makes it difficult to have a conversation.  Are you Dav, Simon, or Vandyke?  Very confusing.  I don't care if you want to be anon., as long as you are open and honest in your discussions with us (no hidden agendas, etc.).

   I was trying to answer your question, as best as I could, re. "collective consciousness", and especially it's relevance to our Assm. experience.  I am not a scholar, sociologist, intellectual, or the like, so maybe my answer fell short of your expectations (heck, I'm just a truck driver). ;)

  Tom, who is an intellectual, provided you with a pretty good answer I thought.  My answers will not be as clear as his, but I think Tom and I are in agreement that the whole concept of "consciousness", at least in the context of the social pressures in a cult, have little to do with sound reason but very much to do with emotional issues.

   This word "consciousness" reminds me of my ol' hippie days when the word meant that one had a "higher awareness."  Most normal folks lived their lives without any knowledge that life was more than just their daily routines, distractions, etc., but us hippies knew better ::).  I suppose George would have called his version of this concept of knowing better "heavenly vision."

  However, you want me to comment on "social" consciousness, and I guess what that means is herding others along via instruction in a proponents higher awareness that thus captures them and molds them within the confines of the leader's views.

  All this consciousness stuff is nothing more than our feelings tricking us into thinking that we can avoid all the hard work of thinking things through.  Some of my deepest insights came via drugs, but when I came down I had forgotten what I had learned!  Same thing with these group (social) experiences (as Tom explained with his Pentecostal example) where we weren't taught how to think critically.  As a matter of fact, individual critical thinking was proclaimed to be "carnal, worldly," or maybe even "of the devil!" >:D

  Now, I'm all for the importance of sentiment as a necessary sensor of the conscience--- when I felt bad as I saw our Assm. leaders do wrong things that was meant to stir me to take a strong moral stand against the evil, even if I couldn't provide a good theological argument at that very moment.  However, if we had been conditioned to ignore that sentiment (hardening the heart) and herded into the group vision it creates an inability to respond with reasonable conviction, as God would have us to.

  So, yes, the dynamic of "social consciousness" exists, but it is our job as Christians to resist the herd mentality and become individuals who understand what it means to be free in Christ and not fear to stand-up against those that want to force us into their group mentality.  Because religion has falsely been used to "make" slaves of it's members, and our spiritual yearnings have been used by a charlatan, does not mean that God is not real, or that there is not a true spiritual experience to be had.

                                                                     God Bless,  Mark C.     

 Marc, I have contacted Flora and explained to why I changed my name.


"Tom is an intellectual"  Tom leaped from defining current trends in physics as an illustration for sociology into...

"Likewise, just because group behavior effects our emotional life does not mean that nothing else could be a part of the reality of what we experience."  quote from Tom (So tell me what does this mean?)



 All this consciousness stuff is nothing more than our feelings tricking us into thinking that we can avoid all the hard work of thinking things through 
                                                          Quote from Marc,





  Yes (I agree with the "thinking" part, but not sure "feelings" holds as much weight)  and I think this article forcess everyone to take a long hard look at themselves. It forces you to ask the questions, Why do I think, behave, live the way I do? Why did I think God was speaking to me in the Assembly? It also brings up a number of other issues!  But I will leave that alone for now.

             

I have moved this from the wrong thread to the correct one.  TM


The point of my illustration was simply this: The universe exists in such a manner that its behavior can be described on several scales.  All of these levels are parts of the dynamic entity we call the "universe".

The human psyche is much more complex than planets and stars. In addition we already know the human psyche functions at multiple levels.  So, to describe one level of our functioning such as Durkheim's "collective conscousness" does not in any way negate the fact that we function at other levels at the same time.

BTW, do not confuse Einstein's theories of special and general relativity with moral relativism.  Einstien's theories are about physics.  Moral relativism is about ethics.  There is no connection beyond the word "relative".

T. Maddux

 Okay Vandyyke, (however when using this name I somehow picture you with an antiquated growth of facial hair) ;)

    Re. Tom as an "intellectual":  When I use this word I did not mean to suggest that all he has ever said was correct or superior, just that he converses using the skills of someone trained in well reasoned argument.  These skills can be used by someone who is wrong or right, and by themselves are only tools---- not proof that their views are necessarily the best.  Though, I think he is correct in what he is saying here.

   The study you want us to comment on is interesting, and yes every former member would be well served to consider how much of their Assm. experience was really from God vs. one kind of deceptive experience or another.  I think my point (as well as Tom's) here is that "social consciousness" is not the only influence we need to consider.

  When I was saved I was not in a group (I was living the life of a hermit)--- and I know for a fact that most of those who made up the group were saved prior to coming in.  The belief in the bible being God's word and the resulting emotional reactions due to this conviction were already fixed in my life.  I, and many others, were not victims of some kind of "social consciousness" influences that led to our faith in Christ.

  Deceptive religious influences, of the kind that can effect believers, are a constant biblical warning.  I say this to make the point that we must understand the differences between true communications from God vs. pseudo ones.  There are former members who are threatened by any suggestion that we must make critical judgments re. the nature of our Christian experiences in the Assm.

  God's intention is to develop us as individuals with the maturity to make up our own minds apart from the pressures of conformity to a group conviction.  If we have failed to do so in the past it is time to grow in our faith to the point where we discover the dignity God has gifted us with and the inalienable privileges that go along with that.  A true expression of NT church life is not a group consciousness but individually enlightened minds and hearts exercising their respective abilities.

                                                                             God Bless,  Mark C.   

Yes.  I absolutely believe it does.

Groups like the Assembly are so astoundingly successful because they take our natural, human need for community and turn that against us to manipulate us into doing as they wish.  It's a horrible perversion, but extremely effective as we have all seen.

When the young man asked Jesus what he had to do to be saved, Jesus asked him what the greatest commandment was (pardon me if I'm mixing my Bible references here).  The young man replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind." (establishing the primacy of relationship with God).  Jesus congratulated him, then added, "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Well, that isn't an optional command.  To have a full-fledged relationship with God involves loving people too.  We weren't just made for God -- we were also made for each other.  It's a fact.

And it's a fact many unscrupulous leaders have used against the people they wished to lead throughout history.  Including George Geftakys.

What a cool post, Tom!  I think these were excellent observations on "how" this works.  I learned something -- thank you!

It really IS amazing that God managed to get anything done whatsoever in that dungheap, now isn't it?   ;)

I learned something recently.  I learned that "suffering for doing what is right" (not "suffering for doing something wrong or stupid," mind you) is more properly known as "persecution" and what that actually makes you is "Christ-like."

Jesus was tortured to death on a cross.  Saul threw rocks at Sebastian (?) I think, until he died.  Peter was crucified upside down.  Paul was beheaded.  And so forth.

I think that answers your question about God allowing His disciples to be cruelly treated.  We are made not for this life, but the next.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to be happy in this life, to take care of ourselves and our bodies and our loved ones, but that we are going towards a higher purpose.  Everybody suffers in this life, believers and unbelievers alike.  What God did for us is to give that suffering meaning.