Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CherylR

Book: Introverts in the Church: Finding our place in an extroverted culture

Recommended Posts

On the Myers-Briggs: I tested as an INFP, although I do remember that I was a borderline "J." INFP is apparently one of the most difficult personality types for men to have-- and as a man who rarely meets other men (or women, for that matter) who share his interests (thoughtful films, music, poetry, NOT sports), I can believe it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, your comment resonates very much with me, although I am probably more of an introverted person with extraverted tendencies at certain times (confusing, eh?).

Not at all. Sounds like we are exact opposits in worship!

Three years ago, I was a member of a somewhat "liturgical" Reformed Baptist church (which may be unusual, for Reformed Baptists-- there were structured, planned prayers, reciting of creeds, and regular times of silence in the service), and I absolutely loved it. Currently, I am a member of a "Reformed-leaning" non-denominational church which has a much more loose, "praise-and-worship" pop-rock feel (the church does have rich, challenging sermons though and songs with thoughtful lyrics). At times, the music is so loud that it distracts me and discourages me from singing (I still do sing, but it can be a challenge).

The Reformed aspect being a problem for me (I'm at best a Reformed Arminian), I might not have traveled as far had I found a more liturgical protestant church. My Baptist church was leaning P&W at the time of my exit. Such leaning was the last straw. That church is what they once called in NC as "Presbapterian". However, it was "long" sermons that seemed prickly and challenging in the chip-on-the-shoulder way that led me to a worship form that restricted homilies to 15 to 20 minutes (I thought that if I had to abide contentious sermons, I'd only waste half the time).

For many reasons, I am considering either returning to the Catholic Church or converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. The overwhelming factors are theological/historical and ecclesiatical, not having do with music, the loudness thereof, or the fellowship in my current church. I have a bit of a concern about actually finding fellowship in Catholic or Orthodox churches, but I can't allow that to be the deciding factor for me, as to whether I continue on as a Protestant or change. Honestly, I already have changed in my mind and heart, but I'm not sure about the exact nature of that change at this time.

I once was a Catholic convert (from agnosticism), but I was not so well catechized, and for that and other reasons, I ended up leaving and eventually becoming a Reformed Baptist. Now, I'm facing the possibility that I will lose many of my Reformed, "Calvinist" friends, as those particular Protestant circles often don't take kindly to Catholic or Orthodox conversions (or reversions). Losing one group of friends, and moving to another tradition in which it may be hard to make friends, are very disheartening prospects, but I will go where I sense Truth leading me, despite the human cost. Introvert or extravert, I know that God will sustain me. I do hope that I will eventually find friends though-- as Thomas Merton writes, no man is an island.

My problem now with evangelical and non-liturgical worship is the immanence/transcendance problem. Evangelicals have immanence down. The personal relationship with Christ fills that need wonderfully. However, for me, worship MUST celebrate God's transcendance and somewhat inscrutability. Evangelical worship and easy listening and intense rock and roots music services don't do the transcendence for me. It is God's transcendence and majesty that causes me to become introverted in worship, in His presence in the act of celebrating His Being, so to speak. Any focus on me, or exclamation, or show by me is not really proper. Hence the quiet and contemplative Rich really only presents itself in worship. Most other times, I can't shut up and will talk to anyone who will listen.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, the last part of your reply actually brings out an interesting aspect of my possible move away from Reformed Protestantism. At least in my experience, Reformed churches do understand and emphasize the transcendence of God more than many other evangelical traditions. The holiness of God, majesty of God... Reformed people, generally, have a decent handle on those things (understanding, of course, that we are all far from where we should be, most of all me).

It's not basic Reformed soteriology (God's sovereignty in our salvation) which is causing me to struggle with Protestantism, nor is it a Reformed lack of understanding of God's transcendence. Saint Thomas Aquinas is actually quite close to Luther and Calvin on the nature and operation of God's sovereignty. However, I am at the point of questioning basic Protestant ideas, such as Sola Scriptura, which puts me on the edge of both camps, Calvinist and Arminian, and points me either toward Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm just struggling with the possible reality of not having many opportunities for fellowship in either of those traditions. As I wrote, I'm an introvert with certain extraverted tendencies (sometimes). However, I do enjoy having soul-nourishing conversations with people, and I fear that I may have much fewer opportunities for those in the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy, just by the nature of their services (which I like, in and of themselves, but people tend to leave so quickly after the services).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher Lake wrote:

: However, I do enjoy having soul-nourishing conversations with people, and I fear that I may have much fewer opportunities for those in the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy, just by the nature of their services (which I like, in and of themselves, but people tend to leave so quickly after the services).

Really? I've only attended two Orthodox churches on a regular basis, but in both of them, the fellowship (i.e. lunch) time afterwards was a pretty big deal. Not least because we're supposed to abstain from food between midnight and communion; by the time the service is over, we're pretty hungry. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they do leave quickly, but I'm guessing that there are other ways for you to meet people who are members of local parish churches... I think it's worth a try.

Thank you for the encouragement. smile.gif Theoretically, there probably would be other other ways for me to meet fellow parishioners, but I have a physical disability, am not able to drive, and live in a city where the public transit has... issues. These are some of the practical reasons why I think that I, as an individual, might not have many opportunities to meet people outside of Catholic or Orthodox worship services. I simply can't get to many places, physically, in my city.

Still, I don't think that I can remain in the Protestant tradition much longer. When I stepped outside of that theological/philosophical framework (in my mind), several months ago, and began questioning it, that was the beginning of the end. From there, it has only become more and more difficult for me to remain a Protestant. No matter what the atmosphere is like, socially, for me, I sense that, in the next few months, I will either returning to the Catholic Church (as I once was Catholic) or moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy. Either way, I'm preparing, psychologically and emotionally, for many of my Reformed Protestant friends to see me as either apostate or unregenerate....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I've only attended two Orthodox churches on a regular basis, but in both of them, the fellowship (i.e. lunch) time afterwards was a pretty big deal. Not least because we're supposed to abstain from food between midnight and communion; by the time the service is over, we're pretty hungry. smile.gif

That's encouraging to hear, Peter. I must admit that my statement about Eastern Orthodox parishes is based on the one time that I actually attended an Orthodox service, and more so, on anecdotes that I've heard from other Orthodox. Not at all enough information for me to make a fair decision. Honestly, I'm more intimidated by the fact that many Orthodox churches seem to be split along ethnic lines, i.e. would I be welcomed, as a Caucasian, at an Indian Orthodox parish (a sincere question, not intending to suggest anything)?

Edited by Christopher Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher Lake wrote:

: Honestly, I'm more intimidated by the fact that many Orthodox churches seem to be split along ethnic lines, i.e. would I be welcomed, as a Caucasian, at an Indian Orthodox parish (a sincere question, not intending to suggest anything)?

It's a good question. The two churches I've attended are both English-language and made up primarily (though definitely not entirely) of converts. My sister also attends an English-language Orthodox church. So I've never had to deal with feeling like an ethnic outsider in an Orthodox setting.

If anything, the closest I've ever come to feeling like an ethnic outsider was back in my Mennonite days, when I attended my grandmother's church -- which, at the time, had services in German as well as English. My mother and her brothers all grew up speaking German, but my mother married an Englishman (unlike my uncles, who all married German-speaking Mennonite girls), so my siblings and I never picked up the language and thus always felt a little out of the loop whenever we visited there.

For what it's worth, the two churches I've attended are affiliated with the OCA (i.e. the Orthodox Church in America), while my sister's church is affiliated with the Antiochian jurisdiction, but we're in communion with each other so it still feels very much like "one church" in that sense; it doesn't feel like a "split" on the level of actual worship or fellowship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good question. The two churches I've attended are both English-language and made up primarily (though definitely not entirely) of converts.For what it's worth, the two churches I've attended are affiliated with the OCA (i.e. the Orthodox Church in America), while my sister's church is affiliated with the Antiochian jurisdiction, but we're in communion with each other so it still feels very much like "one church" in that sense; it doesn't feel like a "split" on the level of actual worship or fellowship.

Yes, this the first thing that occured to me as a result of Christopher's desire for fellowship. I have an inkling of the different textures in Orthodox jurisdictions, but have little idea of how to map such things for guys like Christopher. It would seem to me to rsearch the origins and authority structure of Orthodox parish "x". It could minimize culture shock with the right parish.

If considering Anglican possibilities, one should look for rectors and priests as members of The Society of the Sacred Cross (SSC). They are almost always Anglo-Catholic. Always high liturgy, often more Catholic than I am comfortable with, but willing to bring folks like me along simply because of the real and dwindling supply of devout, orthodox Anglicans in North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E2c, thanks for the great suggestions, seriously-- as somewhat of an introvert, I would never even think of calling a church and introducing myself, other than to ask about accessibility issues for my wheelchair, or to request an extra-long confession time, to cover the many years that I've been away from the Catholic Church (which I may need to do soon!). Your suggestions really are helpful-- as I said, I never would have thought of them myself!

Peter, as you implied for yourself, the "ethnic Orthodox" issue is an almost entirely new one for me. I think that the nearest Orthodox parish to where I live is actually an all-convert one, but if I end up moving back to the D.C. area (as I am hoping to eventually do), the strict ethnic churches will almost certainly outnumber the "largely convert" ones. There is an OCA parish in D.C. that might be a bit of both though, so we shall see.

Rich, when I mentioned to a Reformed friend that I might be returning to the Catholic Church, he suggested, as an alternative, going the "Anglo-Catholic" route. I think that he really just wants for me to stay Protestant, and I understand.

However, for me, the "church authority" issue is a big one, theologically and ecclesiatically (it is one of the main factors driving me away from Protestantism). I love the Anglo-Catholic sense of beauty and reverence, but given the struggles that I already have regarding Protestantism, if I went Anglo-Catholic, I'm fairly sure that it would only be a way-station on my way to either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I do understand the Anglo-Catholic appeal though! In the past several months, I have realized that I'm very much a "high-liturgy man." Who would have thought, from a former Reformed Baptist (RB churches can be much more "structured" in their services than some others though)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, when I mentioned to a Reformed friend that I might be returning to the Catholic Church, he suggested, as an alternative, going the "Anglo-Catholic" route. I think that he really just wants for me to stay Protestant, and I understand.

However, for me, the "church authority" issue is a big one, theologically and ecclesiatically (it is one of the main factors driving me away from Protestantism). I love the Anglo-Catholic sense of beauty and reverence, but given the struggles that I already have regarding Protestantism, if I went Anglo-Catholic, I'm fairly sure that it would only be a way-station on my way to either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I do understand the Anglo-Catholic appeal though! In the past several months, I have realized that I'm very much a "high-liturgy man." Who would have thought, from a former Reformed Baptist (RB churches can be much more "structured" in their services than some others though)?

I have authority issues too and, typical for me, I get shot at from both sides. I've not been able to shed my Protestant foundations completely. I wrestle with what appears to me to be the chicken/egg conundrum of scriptural authority/ adoption of the Canon, etc. I have trouble with the absolute authority that Catholicism demands, suspicious that the very absolute authority contributed to the very mess of disunity we have today. I would say that your friend may have been sincere, particularly if you talk with Anglo-Catholics (I do constantly, my parish is A-C). Their preference is to look to Rome while reserving the authentic Mass, but in English, not Latin. The less I talk about actual details, the more comfortable I am in fellowship with them. They indulge my Protestant "weaker-brotherism", so to speak, on various issues. I cling to Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles ("scripture contains all things necessary unto salvation and nothing not contained therein may be compelled to be believed"). Alas, nobody takes the Articles seriously anymore.

If Detroit is any indication, good luck with Catholic high mass. It's always been available here, serepticiously. But the parishes have not been easy to find. Curiously, we are allied in small ways with these and an A-C parish across the river in Windsor, ON. I wonder if D.C. is better populated with such churches.

e2c: I still owe you an answer from the previous page. I lot there to play with and little time. Hopefully tomorrow afternoon....

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, this entire path back toward apostolic-succession churches (Catholic or Orthodox) has been unexpected and unpredictable (even as I've experienced it myself!). However, once I began re-examining my Protestant assumptions (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide) in the light of reading the early Church Fathers, it was amazing how very fragile those foundations came to seem to me.

I'm still struggling with the place of Mary, to some extent, in the Catholic Church, and especially as a fairly-recent former Calvinist, I have some real reservations about the Catechism's statement (#841) that Muslims "adore the one, merciful God" (I have Reformed friends who would literally risk their lives to share the Gospel with Muslims). However, as I see things now, it will be incredibly difficult for me to remain a Protestant. I dearly love my brothers and sisters in Christ who are at home in that large theological world (as I very much was, until recently), but I see too many holes in the basic framework for me to stay there.

About finding a high Mass, as far as I know, here in Albuquerque, there is exactly one parish that offers a Latin Mass (one parish that is not schismatic, that is). I would love to attend it, but it's simply too far from where I live for me to get there (the fact that I can't drive, physically, makes all the difference). However, there does at least seem to be an orthodox Catholic parish close to my house. (Parishes that faithfully teach the Catholic faith can, sadly, be hard to find in some places.) In my power wheelchair, I could probably get there within ten minutes. I want to be absolutely sure before I leave my current church though, and I still need to do more study on Eastern Orthodoxy. Too many disenchanted Protestants don't even consider EO.

Edited by Christopher Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to look back through the book; my husband, who is an introvert with extrovert tendencies like Christopher mentioned and also a leader in our local church, wants me to put a bullet list together so he can present it to the staff/leadership. It'll be interesting--two of our staff, including our preaching minister, are introverts.

If you do this, please post the list here. I'd love to be able to forward it to my pastor.

Here's the list. Comments/questions/points of clarification welcome. :)

*******

Introverts Among Us

The following points are taken from the book Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture by Adam S. McHugh. Published by InterVarsity Press, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-8308-3701-1

Term Clarification

· Introversion and extroversion are present in each person, not different categories of people. Everyone has both components; in some introvert tendencies dominate.

· Introversion is not another word for shyness or aloofness

Three Primary Characteristics

· Energy level-introverts are energized by solitude and re-energize in solitude or with one or two close friends—we aren’t anti-social. Interactions with people are draining to an introvert.

· Process ideas internally-thinking comes before speaking. We may be quiet physically, but mentally we are busy processing and won’t say anything until we have thought things through. In social situations, this is tough because it usually means by the time we’ve something to say, the topic has moved on to something else.

· Prefer depth over breadth. Introversion is hard-wired into our brains, not a bad social habit we can be broken of. Our brains are created differently than extroverts, meaning we process information differently—it takes time and thought.

Issues

· Pushed to become involved in group situations can be overwhelming, to the point of paralysis or being forced to leave the situation. Ice-breaker type activities, or inserting a group activity into a service where one didn’t exist before and doing it without warning can be a nightmare.

· Pushed to share aspects of our lives in group settings, giving testimony for example, isn’t something an introvert is comfortable doing. Don’t put us on the spot.

· Assuming shyness and introversion are interchangeable when they are not. Introversion is a personality trait, shyness is learned behavior.

· Introverts have difficulty in accepting themselves because of rejections experienced at the hands of a more extroverted culture. Introverts need encouragement and freedom to accept ourselves as we are. Only then can an introvert find the abililty to reach outward. Introverts walk a fine line between solitude and withdrawing into their own worlds, which is unhealthy. We are all created in community, just not so much as an extrovert needs.

Spirituality

· Quality of our spiritual life is dependent on the quality of our inner lives.

· We tend to be drawn to the unknown, the mysterious side of God instead of the more prominent “what can be known” aspect of spirituality, the aspect which dominates most of evangelical culture.

· “As introverts, we need to take the activities of our inner worlds seriously in order to hear the overtures of God sounding in our lives” (76).

· Spiritual maturity is not equal participating in an increasing number of activities or increasing the number of people you know or who know you.

· Spiritual maturity is not proportional to the amount of “sharing” and individual does.

· “No is an indispensible word for introverts who need solitude and space to refuel and reflect” (93).

· Church doesn’t define a sense of belonging—an individual makes that determination.

· Too often churches expect introverts to change, instead of the church broadening its understanding of participation.

· An introvert’s journey into community is best described as a spiral—move into community, move out in order to regain equilibrium thru rest, thought and determining comfort level, then spiral in again, going a little deeper.

· Introverts can step away from activities, even if there is a long history of participation.

· Introverts in community follow an engage/retreat pattern.

Evangelism

· Introverts do better exploring mystery with others, not trying to push a product

· Introverts can seek out ways God is already at work in a situation, discovering the nuances of the Holy Spirit’s work and cultivating spiritual awareness in those around them.

· Introverts function better in sharing their faith when it’s done in one on one friendships. Introverts, by their nature, are better at listening, which can be a powerful tool in forming relationships and revealing God’s nature.

· Introverts have the ability/gift of slowing people down.

Church

· Celebrate differences.

· Be tuned into the fact that there are people present who are uncomfortable with something like a greeting time. This doesn’t mean to do away with this activity, but at least acknowledge publicly that not everyone is comfortable with the practice and that’s OK. Introverts need to battle against totally withdrawing into themselves.

· Embrace different worship styles—people can raise their hands if they want or not. Either way is OK.

· Think about having times for introverts to gather. (OK, I’m having some trouble picturing this one. Seems at odds with itself.)

· Experiment with contemplative forms of worship and Scripture reading during services. Stretch the extroverts with different types of worship.

· Have Bible studies that go deeper—that examine Scripture within historical and cultural contexts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the list. Comments/questions/points of clarification welcome. :)

Thanks. This is a great list. I really need to read the book now; I was waiting for a friend to finish it so I could borrow it, but it looks like I'll want to be able to underline large portions of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the list. Comments/questions/points of clarification welcome. :)

Thanks. This is a great list. I really need to read the book now; I was waiting for a friend to finish it so I could borrow it, but it looks like I'll want to be able to underline large portions of it.

You're welcome. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just discovered this topic and it definitely strikes a chord with me. First, some background about me. My parents were not church-goers, although they were married in a church, and had us kids baptized as infants (well, at least I was baptized - I was the oldest). Once, when I was eight or nine, my mom decided we should start going to church, and that we'd start on Easter Sunday. My mom was nominally Methodist - her grandfather had been a Methodist minister - and so she trooped us all, including my dad, down to the nearby Methodist church. This would have been either 1967 or 1968. She made my brother and me wear dress shirts and pants - maybe even ties, although I don't remember for sure about the ties. About all I do remember is that I was bored out of my skull and that my pants itched like hell. I think even my mom was bored. We didn't go back.

Despite this inauspicious beginning, about ten years later I would develop a strong interest in religion, and not just Christianity, but also Judaism, Taoism and Buddhism, about all of which I read widely. But I only read about it; I didn't practice any particular form of it, or attend any services. I was quite shy and introverted (I still am). Then, for a brief period of time in my early twenties, after I was out on my own, I lived in Tampa, Florida, and while I was there I attended Quaker "meetings" (where silent worship was practiced). These were my first forays back into a church since the "itchy pants" incident, and I actually enjoyed them a lot. But I soon moved away from there, and my interest in religion waned. Over the next twenty-five years I was immersed in career, marriage, and kids of my own.

Then, early in 2005, I felt a sense of incompleteness. After some initial study - remember, we introverts are never impulsive - I picked a (Christian) church for us to try (our kids were away at college by now). My wife is very much an extrovert; we're polar opposites. She felt the same incompleteness I did, but it made no difference to her which church we attended, except that she'd rather it not be Quaker. I, of course, remembered how much I had liked the Quaker form of silent worship, and I talked to her about it, but she had attended Methodist churches while growing up, and she said she wanted a more traditional form of worship. And, in truth, I think I wanted at least a little bit of liturgy too (and, yes, I know that some Quakers practice a "programmed" form of worship, but in our city the only choice was "unprogrammed" worship).

One of the things that had attracted me to the Quaker church was their historic witness for peace and non-violence; the Mennonite church and the Church of the Brethren share this historic witness, but they have more traditional forms of worship, and so I decided we'd try both and then decide between the two. As it happened, we visited our local Church of the Brethren first, and we liked it so much that we never even visited the local Mennonite church. After several months of attending services, my wife and I became members of the local COB church. And we remained in this congregation for four years, until last September, when we moved halfway across the country to an area without any COB presence.

Our COB church was fairly small. I'm not sure of the exact membership count, but I'd guess it was about 100 members, or maybe slightly below that. On any given Sunday there were usually 50 to 75 people in church. The Church of the Brethren and the Mennonites have much in common. Both are Anabaptist - that is, they baptize adult believers, and not infants (there is a service of "dedication" for infants). My wife and I were baptized in 2005, along with two young adults in our congregation. Of course it was a profound experience (and commitment) for me personally, made all the more meaningful by the opportunity to undergo it with my wife, as well as with two others from our congregation. It's been my impression that, in general, the COB is a fairly staid denomination, as denominations go - not too demonstrative, not at all "happy-clappy." In short, the COB is a pretty decent fit for an introvert like me. Nevertheless, it was interesting to observe the different ways that my wife and I "fit into" our congregation.

I want to preface the following remarks by expressing my profound gratitude for the friendship and fellowship I experienced in our COB congregation. No amount of reading or study can possibly replace the experiential component of religion. I know that now. It was often joyful and inspiring to be with the members of my congregation, and several of them set an example of Christian love and service that I, sadly, will probably never be able to match.

As new members of the congregation, my wife and I were both invited to serve separately on one of the dozen or so committees within our church. The only full-time employee of our church is our pastor. It's possible, although I'm not sure, that the member who serves as our church secretary is also paid something, but if so, it's likely a pittance. Everything else - all other work - is done by volunteers. I'm sure this is common in many small, and even not so small, churches. An effort is usually made to assign church members to committees that suit their talents and interests. My wife is quite the "outdoors" person, and a real handy(wo)man, and so it was natural for her to accept a place on the "maintenance and grounds" committee. It was, so I learned later, more of a challenge to figure out a committee to invite me to serve on. Reading a lot of books, and watching foreign films that most people find unwatchable - even if, as in my case, both of these activities largely cohered around spiritual themes - is curiously unhelpful in terms of the practical concerns of running a church congregation. Funnily enough.

The closest fit for me was deemed to be the "education" committee, so that's where I served. Oddly, the one area of education that would have been the best fit for me, "adult" education, was not within the purview of our committee; for some reason, it was handled by the deacons of our church. Clearly, I was years away (if ever) from being deacon material. But perhaps it didn't matter anyway, because the adult portion of our Sunday School was very poorly attended - averaging two or three people, if that - and was simply not a focus for our congregation. Our congregation had no book discussion group, much less a film discussion group. Had I been an extrovert, I probably would have tried to start either a book or film discussion group. It's not as though there weren't well-educated people in our church - a few had advanced degrees - but our church just didn't seem to sponsor activity that wasn't directly, and obviously, practical. It is a congregation of doers, and not (so much) thinkers. But no, that's not right. I know it's not right, because I became friends with two or three people in our church who were, in fact, deep thinkers. It's more accurate to say that their thinking, deep though it was, was not much valued or used by the wider congregation.

My work on the education committee was behind-the-scenes, a fact which suited me well as an introvert. For example, we spent a lot of time evaluating, and selecting, a new curriculum for the kids in our Sunday School. Everyone was tired of the old curriculum, but the new one was pricier; we finally bit the bullet, and were glad we did. Preparing for Vacation Bible School, both times (I served on the committee for two years), felt a bit like Grant preparing to take Richmond. The movement of the kids, from station to station, was as choreographed as a ballet, as well thought out as the placements and movements of the actors in the final scene of Ordet. Every minute was accounted for. It's probably the closest I'll ever come to what it must feel like to direct a film. Over my two years on the committee - and there were only three of us on the committee - we met at least once a month, and sometimes more often than that. It was a lot of work, especially for the chairwoman, who was also the church secretary (!). She confided to me, when her two-year term was up, that she was never so glad to be done with serving on a church committee (and she had served on many over the years).

On the other hand, if the maintenance and grounds committee that my wife was on met even once during those two years, I'm not aware of it. Which is not to say that she didn't do things on her committee. It's just that that committee's activities didn't require much planning: "Can you get over to the church later today to mow the lawn? I'm tied up today." Or: "Let's all meet at the church on Saturday afternoon to rake leaves." That kind of thing. My wife, being the extrovert that she is, ended up working "unofficially" on several other committees, at one time or another. She is multitalented, unlike me, and her skills are highly practical, unlike mine. All told, she probably worked as much as I did, but her work was spread out over multiple committees. Her contributions also tended to be more visible to the congregation than mine.

Although we both were warmly welcomed by our congregation at all times, I'd be kidding myself if I didn't acknowledge that my wife made a bigger, and more positive, impression overall than I did - as well she should have. Of course, introverts must always guard against simple laziness, must test their "I do not want to" constantly to see whether it springs from a cold, uncaring heart. I admit that I let too many opportunities - for connection, for friendship - slip away from me in my old congregation, and I regret this. But I also know that I am wired differently from my wife, that I will always find social gatherings, etc., draining, and that I have to accept this fact. The congregation as a whole will always consist of a mixture of extroverts and introverts, and the trick for the congregational leaders is to take care that they are not overlooking - no, more than this, to make sure they are doing all they can to encourage - us introverts in their midst whose talents are always going to be less obvious.

We haven't yet found a new church home where we now live, but I'm sure that we will. I have to admit that I'm eyeing the local Quaker worship group and wondering if I could talk my wife into trying it, at least once. Of course, I could always go there alone, but I would prefer that we worship together. And who knows? I might find, after thirty years, that silent worship doesn't work for me anymore. Or not.

The Quakers have an old saying that I've always liked: "Don't just do something, sit there."

Edited by tenpenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this topic reminds me of a passage I recently read by Semyon Frank (1877-1950), a Jewish-born Russian religious philosopher who converted to the (Eastern) Orthodox faith as an adult. The passage, which is from an extended essay, the translated title of which is "The Meaning of Life," impressed me as a profound statement of the effectiveness and communal power of ascetic contemplation. Of course, many introverts are not spiritually inclined, and even among those who are, probably very few are actually ascetic contemplatives. But all of us — extroverts included — who have an interest in spiritual things have at least moments when we ponder The Unknowable (the title of possibly Frank's best book). And usually when we do this, we are alone; if not in our persons, then at least in our thoughts. In short, we are at least temporarily introverts in those moments. What looks to others like idle daydreaming may actually be the most productive work at which a person can be employed. How so? As an answer, I offer the following abridged version of Frank's passage (as translated by Boris Jakim — the translation is unpublished, but Mr. Jakim will freely share his translation of "The Meaning of Life" with anyone who asks him; if interested, contact me privately, and I can put you in touch with him):

A branch of the vine — if it is conscious of the fact that it lives only by the juices that flow in the entire vine and issue from its common root — cannot fail to feel the primordial unity of its own life with the life of all the other branches.
Love
is the foundation of all human life, its very essence; and if, in the world, a man appears to himself to be an isolated and self-enclosed fragment of being which must assert itself
at the cost
of other lives, then a man who has found his genuine essence in the world-embracing unity is conscious of the fact that without love there is no life, and that the degree to which he truly
asserts himself
in his genuine essence is directly proportional to the degree to which he overcomes his illusory self-enclosedness and finds a foundation in the other. Outwardly, the human personality appears to be self-enclosed and separated from other beings, but, inwardly, in its depths, it communicates with all other beings, is fused with them in primordial unity.

Therefore,
the more deeply a human being goes inside himself, the more he will expand
and the more readily he will attain a natural and necessary connection with all other human beings, and with the entire life of the world as a whole. Thus, the usual opposition between immersion into one's inner depths and social interaction is superficial and based on a total misunderstanding of the structure of the spiritual world, of the genuine structure of being, invisible to the sensuous gaze. It is usually thought that people "socially interact" with one another when they ceaselessly run around, meet many people, read newspapers and publish articles in them, attend meetings and give presentations at them, but that when a person immerses himself deep "in himself," he isolates himself from other people, loses his connection with them. That is an absurd illusion. At no time is a person so self-enclosed, so isolated, so abandoned by other people and himself forgetful of them, as when he totally devotes himself to external social intercourse, to external business dealings, to "society." And no one attains such loving attention, such sensitive understanding of another's life, such breadth of world-embracing love, as a hermit who, in prayer penetrating down into his own deepest depths, attains the primordial source of world-embracing universal life and of all-human Love, and lives in this source as in the unique element of his own being. A nonreligious person can gain some understanding of this relation if he considers the constant relation between
depth
and
width
in the entire sphere of spiritual culture: A genius — an individual who is immersed deeply into himself and goes his own way, predetermined by his own spiritual depths — turns out to be necessary and useful to all people, and even understandable by later generations and remote nations, because, out of his own depths, he extracts what is
common to all
. But a person whose life consists in the vanity of continuous external social interaction with a multitude of people, and who is ready to imitate people in all things, who wants to be "like everyone else" and to live together with everyone else, knowing only the outward surface of human life — such a person turns out to be an insignificant being, not needed by anyone and always alone.

This fundamental relation of spiritual being, this relation according to which the greatest human commonality and solidarity are found in the depths, has as its consequence the fact that genuine creative and productive work also is accomplished in the depths, and that precisely this profound inner activity is the common work accomplished by everyone not for himself alone, but for all. We have seen what this true and fundamental work of man consists in. It consists in the active grounding of ourselves upon the Proto-source of life, in the creative effort to pour ourselves into Him and Him into ourselves, to ground ourselves upon Him and thus actively to realize the meaning of life, to bring this meaning close to life and thereby to disperse the darkness of meaninglessness. It consists in the exploit of the directedness of our souls in prayer toward God, in the ascetic exploit of the struggle with the murk and blindness of our sensuous passions, of our pride, our egotism, in the annihilation of our empirical being for the sake of resurrection in God. People usually think that a man who engages or attempts to engage in this type of activity either is "doing nothing" or, in any case, is egotistically concerned solely with his own fate, with his personal salvation, and is indifferent to people and their needs. They cite the counterexamples of "social activists," who are concerned with the organization of the fates of a multitude of people, or of soldiers, who give their lives for the good of their homeland, as individuals who truly act and, moreover, who act for the common good, for the good of others. But this entire argument is fundamentally false, since it is conditioned by total blindness, by the attachment of consciousness to the deceitful, superficial appearance of things.

...

But the concept of productive and non-productive labor has apparently disappeared from the domain of spiritual life, even though this concept has an essential and decisive significance in this domain. In order to propagate ideas, in order to organize life in accordance with them, one must
have
them. In order to do good for people or to battle evil for the sake of good, it is, after all, necessary to have
good itself
. Here it is perfectly obvious that, without productive labor and accumulation of goods, life would be impossible, the distribution of goods in life and the utilization of them would be impossible. But who does the producing and accumulating here? Our notions about good are so vague that we think that good is a "relation between people," a natural quality of our behavior; we do not understand that good is
substantial
, that it is a reality which we must first of all seek to attain, which we must
possess
before doing good to other people with it. But
only
a spiritual activist ["podvizhnik" in Russian — derived from "podvig," ascetic exploit] can attain and accumulate good; and each of us can attain and accumulate it only to the extent that we are spiritual activists and dedicate ourselves to inner spiritual activity. Therefore, the activity of prayer and ascesis is not a "fruitless occupation," unnecessary for life and based on the forgetting of life; rather, in the spiritual sphere, it is the sole productive work, the sole genuine production or acquisition of that nourishment without which all of us are condemned to a hungry death. This is not idle contemplation. This is difficult labor "in the sweat of one's face," but also a productive labor, which enables the accumulation of goods; and this is therefore the fundamental and essential work of every man — the primary productive work without which all other human works would stop and become meaningless.

...

All of us, we people of the present day, live more or less in a crazy society, which, like Russia in the years of the Revolution, exists only by
squandering
the goods which were once imperceptibly produced by our predecessors in tranquil, invisible workshops.

...

In reality, spiritual power is always supra-individual, and it always establishes an invisible connection between human beings. The experience of prayers and of spiritual activity confirms this in a myriad of particular examples, and discloses it at once as a general relation. A solitary hermit in his cell, not seen and not heard by anyone, accomplishes a work that, at the same time, has an immediate effect on life as a whole and touches all people. He accomplishes a work that not only is more productive but that is also more
communal
, involving and influencing more people, than the work of the most skillful political orator or editorial writer. Of course, we, who are weak and unskillful ordinary laborers in the field of spiritual being, cannot count on
such
an effect of our inner work. But, if we are not conceited, can we count on greater results in the domain of our external activity in life? The fundamental relation here remains the same: that which is impossible for man is possible for God, and no man knows in advance to what extent he is capable of helping other people with his prayer, with his search for truth, with his inner struggle with himself. In any case, this fundamental human work of the active illumination of life with meaning, of the growing in oneself of the powers of good and righteousness, is not only the singular work of each one of us in isolation; rather, according to its very essence, according to the nature of that domain of being in which this work is being accomplished, it is a common and communal work in which all men are connected in God, and all are for one and one is for all.

This is the great and unique work by means of which we are actively realizing the meaning of life and in virtue of which something essential is really being accomplished in the world — namely the regeneration of the inner fabric of the world, the defeat of the forces of evil, and the filling of the world with the forces of good. This work, a genuinely metaphysical one, is in general possible only because it is by no means merely a human work. The role of man's work here is to prepare the soil, whereas the growth from the soil is accomplished by God Himself. This is a metaphysical, Divine-human process, in which man is only a coparticipant; and this is precisely why, in this process, the foundation of human life on its genuine meaning can be realized.

Edited by tenpenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam and his book is mentioned in a recent book Quiet: The Power of Introverts In a World That Can't Stop Talking. This book has a chapter specifically geared towards the extrovert friendly culture of modern Evangelical Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×