<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Of Margins and Mangers, Continued</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/</link>
	<description>"If an otter can't have fun doing something, it just simply won't do it."</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: theotter</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-177</link>
		<dc:creator>theotter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-177</guid>
		<description>Pop Otter, you used an emoticon! I'm so proud of you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pop Otter, you used an emoticon! I&#8217;m so proud of you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pop Otter</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-176</link>
		<dc:creator>Pop Otter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-176</guid>
		<description>The comments on structure and communitas remind me of a related discussion.

It was once popular  in modernist academic Bible study to contrast early charismatic spontaneity and later institutional structure. This was done in the imagined developmental histories of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The distinction does not hold up in either case. For instance, 1 and 2 Chronicles is among the later and more institutional of Old Testament writings, and the place for charismatic spontaneity is evident frequently within its accounts. Likewise, Acts is considered among the more institutional of the New Testament writings, but again one cannot find greater biblical testimony to the ongoing role of charismatic spontaneity than in this book. The writings attributed to John are among the latest New Testament writings, and they also reserve a strong role for immediate prophetic inspiration alongside whatever traces of institutional structure one may find in them. 

Neither the biblical data nor the history of religious development in general will  support this distinction between early spontaneity and later structure as a general rule. To be sure, some kinds of spontaneity and some kinds of structure do at times come into tension, and sometimes structures accumulate to the point that they inhibit spontaneity, but charismatic spontaneity and institutional structure are not necessarily at opposite ends of some continuum, nor is one more primitive and the other more advanced. They exist side-by-side in the beginning, at the high point, and in the decline of religious movements. Sometimes they are complementary. Indeed, structure can provide the boundaries within which spontaneity can thrive. 

After the charismatic movement had its effect among Roman Catholics in the 1960's through 1980's, I heard one non-charismatic Protestant complain that it was getting so that you could hardly tell the Catholics from the Pentecostals. :) It was apparently confusing the stereotypes by which he distinguished himself from each movement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The comments on structure and communitas remind me of a related discussion.</p>
<p>It was once popular  in modernist academic Bible study to contrast early charismatic spontaneity and later institutional structure. This was done in the imagined developmental histories of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The distinction does not hold up in either case. For instance, 1 and 2 Chronicles is among the later and more institutional of Old Testament writings, and the place for charismatic spontaneity is evident frequently within its accounts. Likewise, Acts is considered among the more institutional of the New Testament writings, but again one cannot find greater biblical testimony to the ongoing role of charismatic spontaneity than in this book. The writings attributed to John are among the latest New Testament writings, and they also reserve a strong role for immediate prophetic inspiration alongside whatever traces of institutional structure one may find in them. </p>
<p>Neither the biblical data nor the history of religious development in general will  support this distinction between early spontaneity and later structure as a general rule. To be sure, some kinds of spontaneity and some kinds of structure do at times come into tension, and sometimes structures accumulate to the point that they inhibit spontaneity, but charismatic spontaneity and institutional structure are not necessarily at opposite ends of some continuum, nor is one more primitive and the other more advanced. They exist side-by-side in the beginning, at the high point, and in the decline of religious movements. Sometimes they are complementary. Indeed, structure can provide the boundaries within which spontaneity can thrive. </p>
<p>After the charismatic movement had its effect among Roman Catholics in the 1960&#8217;s through 1980&#8217;s, I heard one non-charismatic Protestant complain that it was getting so that you could hardly tell the Catholics from the Pentecostals. <img src='http://www.theottery.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> It was apparently confusing the stereotypes by which he distinguished himself from each movement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: theotter</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-175</link>
		<dc:creator>theotter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:26:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-175</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I don't think they're opposing "structure" to "communitas," and I wouldn't say that "structure" has a thoroughly negative connotation for them either. I've only skimmed the book, but they mention several times that they're devout Catholics and say that this has affected their work (they're anthropologists), so they're certainly not opposed to the structure they mention here (the Church). 

Even the spontaneous kind of communitas they describe depends on the structure of the pilgrimage to bring folks together. 

K, my fellow pilgrim, of course I'll bring my book list! I ain't dragging along many books, though. I'm so happy that you dreamed about otters. Gambol, gambol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re opposing &#8220;structure&#8221; to &#8220;communitas,&#8221; and I wouldn&#8217;t say that &#8220;structure&#8221; has a thoroughly negative connotation for them either. I&#8217;ve only skimmed the book, but they mention several times that they&#8217;re devout Catholics and say that this has affected their work (they&#8217;re anthropologists), so they&#8217;re certainly not opposed to the structure they mention here (the Church). </p>
<p>Even the spontaneous kind of communitas they describe depends on the structure of the pilgrimage to bring folks together. </p>
<p>K, my fellow pilgrim, of course I&#8217;ll bring my book list! I ain&#8217;t dragging along many books, though. I&#8217;m so happy that you dreamed about otters. Gambol, gambol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Possum</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>Possum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-174</guid>
		<description>I'm totally unfamiliar with these texts, though they sound really cool. But since I'm unfamiliar and don't have access to the whole point, I'm just wondering, are the Turners understanding "structure" as an antonym to "communitas"? Why does the word "structure" seem to have such a negative connotation in the sentence you quoted? And how can you have community without some kind of structure? (A home, for instance, is a structure.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m totally unfamiliar with these texts, though they sound really cool. But since I&#8217;m unfamiliar and don&#8217;t have access to the whole point, I&#8217;m just wondering, are the Turners understanding &#8220;structure&#8221; as an antonym to &#8220;communitas&#8221;? Why does the word &#8220;structure&#8221; seem to have such a negative connotation in the sentence you quoted? And how can you have community without some kind of structure? (A home, for instance, is a structure.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-173</link>
		<dc:creator>K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2006/08/of-margins-and-mangers-continued/#comment-173</guid>
		<description>hey, otter!  can i beg you to bring some of your book list along on our upcoming pilgrimage? i need to read the turners for my exams this fall anyway...

on a random side note (not really), there were otters gamboling in one of my dreams last night.

cheers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey, otter!  can i beg you to bring some of your book list along on our upcoming pilgrimage? i need to read the turners for my exams this fall anyway&#8230;</p>
<p>on a random side note (not really), there were otters gamboling in one of my dreams last night.</p>
<p>cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
