Previous Post – The Disciples Prayer

Last Tuesday, at the annual Desiring God pastors conference, well-known pastor & author John Piper advocated for what he calls a “masculine Christianity,” claiming that “God has given Christianity a masculine feel.”

“God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother,” Piper said. “The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter; the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male…God appoints all the priests in the Old Testament to be men; the Son of God came into the world to be a man; He chose 12 men to be His apostles; the apostles appointed that the overseers of the Church be men; and when it came to marriage they taught that the husband should be the head.”

“Now, from all of that I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel,” said Piper. “And being God, a God of love, He has done that for our maximum flourishing both male and female… He does not intend for women to languish or be frustrated or in any way suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy in this masculine Christianity. From which I infer that the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families that have this masculine feel.”

More of his comments can be found here.

Generally, my online response to such controversies are to remain silent- not because I do not believe that such dangerous theology should not be confronted, but rather because, in the age of viral-videos and social media, I resist giving more air time to what I believe is ignorant, dangerous, damaging, etc.

However, when Rachel Held Evans called upon Christian men to respond, I felt compelled to break that rule.  Rachel’s challenge was as follows:

“There’s a double-standard out there in which a woman’s critique of patriarchy tends to get discounted as nothing more than the rants of an “angry feminist,” and, truth be told, I’ve grown a bit weary of hearing that charge each time I speak out about this disturbing trend in the evangelical church.

So instead, I’d like to challenge the guys to respond.”

Rachel is a writer whose passion and poignancy continues to challenge me to grow in faith and truth.  Without a question, she is a leader in the Body of Christ who I need to follow.  Her ability bring life to God’s truth- yes, that means she teaches from Scripture- and communicate it effectively and engagingly in our current culture and context is a gift to Christian everywhere.  And so, I felt her invitation deserved a response.

Since volumes have been written about what God (and His written Word) has to say about gender, I will not attempt to explain the details of what I believe and how I arrived there.  Rather, let me sum it up by saying that I am deeply convinced that God calls both women and men into all vocations in the Church, gifting and empowering them to walk with one another in obedience to those callings.  Therefore, I believe women are called to pastor churches, to teach Christians of all ages and gender.  I have seen such women walk in that obedience and have been blessed to submit to their authority, including and especially my wife, Kim.

Further, I believe that in a marriage relationship between a man and a woman, they are to work together in mutual submission, respecting the differences in their giftings and experience- difference that are apparent in the unique individual, not based on their gender.  There have been many times in which I have rightfully submitted to the authority of my wife.  At times it was because she was clearly more knowledgeable, gifted and/or experienced in the situation at hand or because we believe that the Spirit was leading her.  In faith, we work through our differences and, when necessary, submit to the other as we see appropriate.  It is not always easy nor efficient, but it seems to me that following Christ rarely is.

As I read the story of God through Scripture and study the move of God through the rest of history, I am deeply convinced that the patriarchy that is so prevalent is a reflection of the brokenness of sin which has been and is being reversed by the redemptive work of Christ.  That reversal is the work of the Spirit, breaking into the world and making God’s impossible kingdom a reality.  This is the work of God, the work of Christ and thus, the work of His Body.

We are called to be the living alternative to the broken reality of what we see in the world around us.  Failure to do so is to walk in rebellion against the only Saviour worthy of our devotion and the only King worthy of our obedience.  There is no more or even possibility for neutrality on this issue.  As Desmond Tutu once said:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Worse than silence or supposed neutrality is identify the brokenness of sin in our lives and call it sacred.  It is seems almost tantamount to apostasy to celebrate as God’s intention the devastating consequences of our sin.

While unpopular to say so, I believe that Piper (and those like him) affirm these flawed beliefs out of the best intentions.  They are seeking to be faithful to what they believe is God’s design for His people- for all people.  This truth does not excuse them of the resulting sin- and yes, I believe it must be called sin- however, it should give us pause in how we respond to such failings.

Public and prophetic rebuke is often necessary in such cases.  However, there are few who seem to be able to make such corrections with the grace necessary to still reflect the God waiting to forgive their (and our) sins (and I believe Rachel is one of those few). Instead, the primary response by Christians should be one of humility, grace and unparalleled devotion to live the better alternative, at any cost.

Every generation looks back upon the Church before us and finds their failings and blind spots obvious and hard to comprehend.  Yet, like them, we are equally blind to our own failings.  The realization that our grandchildren will shake their heads at some of our failings should nurture in us a patient grace.  While it might be gratifying to “crucify” (and I do not use that word by accident) those we rightly rebuke, most are being as faithful in their flawed beliefs as we are in our own.  Yes, we need to be strong, clear and uncompromising in our correction, but love and grace must win.

As a Christian man, I am committed to submitting to Christ by submitting to the women He has called, gifted and commanded to lead His Church.  While I am grateful and humbled to do so, it should not be credited to me as meritorious in any way.  While such a commitment might be exceptional with respect to past and current realities, our measure is Christ and His kingdom.  To do any less is unacceptable.

Previous Post – Epic Fail Pastors Conference 2012

Last week, I wrote about the realities of suffering and the church.  Jesus seemed fairly clear that those who follow Him would suffer for it, suggesting that a church that does not suffer may not be following Christ as He has called them to.  Again, we are not to go looking for suffering for its own sake, but to be unwaveringly bold as we dare to live out the teachings of Jesus, to follow Him, not just worship Him.

It is all too easy for us to define our position as a “persecuted” community through the lens of things which we stand against.  In other words, as we publicly oppose abortion, it is not uncommon to be vocally rejected and despised by many people in the world.  However, while such stances are necessary (even if we have gone about it poorly more often than not), I do not believe that our true suffering will primarily about what we oppose.  Instead, following Christ will produce a community whose behaviour, even internally, will offend and threaten the powers that be.

Perhaps one of the most critical of such behaviours in early church history was the practice of hospitality, especially with respect to welcoming people of very diverse, even divergent, economic positions.  Early Christian communities were often characterized by their inclusion of the rich and the poor together.  It was not simply that both were included, but rather than the nature of that inclusion was intentionally subversive to the expectations and patterns of the world.  The poor were not condescended to or merely tolerated, but often given the place of honour, while the rich were encouraged to humble themselves in the community.

It is critical, at this stage, to understand that Jesus (and His wider Jewish tradition) held very integrated view the material and the spiritual with respect to poverty/wealth.  In other words, it is not merely a matter of if you have great wealth or no wealth nor is simply a matter of being “spiritually” rich or poor.  It was both.  Jesus affirmed that follow Him would lead to a life in which the bondage of material wealth would be loosened and our commitment to generosity, simplicity and hospitality would lend itself to an economic place that was more likely to be humble than in abundance.

This is part of Jesus’s upside down kingdom, living in a way so contrary to the way of the world that it seems ludicrous.  And yet, Jesus calls us into communities where poverty (as nuanced above) is something we are to take joy in, while wealth (again, nuanced) something that should teach us humility.  While we do not have the space to get into this in detail here, the point is that our communities should relate to the dynamics of economics differently than the world does.

However, what is most critical for us to recognize is that the rich and the poor did not just happen to be part of the same community, but were there by necessity.  Unlike today, where choosing a Christian community is akin to shopping the market, the early Christians were a minority, an often persecuted minority at that.  Thus, they found themselves together as a community of diversity.

That diversity, while perhaps a necessity in their context, was hugely formational to the nature of their community and the focus of their ministry.  The Roman Emperor Julian commented (disdainfully) on such an identity when he said that their numbers were “specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them.” In other words, they were selflessly caring for the very people who persecuted and killed them.  And this was a threat to the empire and its interests.

All this is to say that, when we consider becoming a community that suffers for Christ, we should give special attention to how we relate to those of lower or higher economic status.  Do our church communities truly and functionally honour the poor?  Do we encourage the wealthy to humble themselves?  How often is the reverse true? These are critical questions for us to unflinchingly ask ourselves.

However, it goes much deeper than this.  After all, unlike the early church, necessity does not require most of us to share life with people of different economic or social status.  As a result, our communities lack the powerful formation that shapes who we are and the ministry we engage in.  Such an admission requires that we ask much harder questions, such as: Might obedience to Christ call demand a re-orientation, even relocation, to intentionally pursue such relationships?  If such a response is necessary, are we willing to uproot ourselves, our families, perhaps even our churches in order to follow Him? As I am fond of saying, when God said there should be no poor among you, He wasn’t recommending segregation.

What does this have to do with suffering?  Without question, the radical reorientation I believe that God is calling His church to will threaten the powers that be, both in the world and among the religious status quo.  It is only when we begin to invite people into our homes, attempt to feed the hungry in our communities, create alternatives for economic justice- it is only in the midst of such a reorientation that begin to discover our counter-cultural Christ’s community is called to be and how many of the world’s (and the church’s) systems resist such a change.

Not every Christian is called to move into a poor neighbourhood (though far more are called to that than are obediently responding).  However, every Christian is called to live a life of generous simplicity and radical hospitality in whatever context they are called (again, not one they simply happen to be in- there is nothing incidental about place).  Every Christian is called to participate in a community that is seeking to be formed into the image of Christ- a formation that necessitates sacrificial and costly choices.

What do you think?  Am I overstating my case?  If not, what response should we give?

Previous Post – Why St. Francis Loved Jesus & Religion

It’s happening again!  My friend JR Briggs announces the upcoming Epic Fail Pastors Conference.  Here’s the skinny:

the idea

The idea for this conference came from two sources: A blog post from J.R. Briggs, a pastor at Renew Community in Lansdale, Pa and the wildly popular site www.epicfail.com.
A few dangerous questions were asked:

• What if we offered a space that is gutsy, hopeful, courageously vulnerable for pastors to let go of the burden to be a Super Pastor?

• What if we could hold an event that was free from the thrills and frills of other pastors conferences?

• What if we came together as epic failures and sought not successful models or how-do’s but instead celebrated faithfulness in ministry because of the reality of Jesus?

•What if we were reminded that we’re not responsible for being ‘successful’ in ministry, but we are responsible for being faithful to the calling that God has laid out for us – regardless of the outcome?

•What if we had a conference that was led not by famous pastors who are household names, but by scandalously ordinary ministers and leaders who are faithfully attempting to join with God – even in the midst of glaring obscurity and anonymity?

That post attracted more hits than any other post that J.R. had written in seven years. People from all over the world began contacting J.R. through the blog, email, phone and text messages saying, ‘I’m in! Where do I sign up?” We knew we had struck a nerve. We were on to something significant.

This excited us and freaked us out.

the details

When:

March 22nd – 24th. Registration will start at 6 p.m. on Thursday, we will start at 7 p.m. We will be done at noon on the 24th. It is important to stay through the end of the conference.

Where:

True Worship Experience | 374 East Willow Dr., Mansfield, OH 44906

Cost:

$89. This covers the cost of the conference. You are on your own for food and lodging. Check out our travel section for nearby lodging.

For all other details, click here.

Previous Post – Remember Haiti

A few years ago, while reading through Church history, I was struck by how often Christian communities found themselves the object of persecution and trials.  More pointedly, it seemed that those times where the church suffered most were the times their witness was most vibrant and authentic.  While I had seen this dynamic before, I had always assumed that their suffering produced in them the notable faithfulness- and to be sure, that is a part of it.  However, I began to wonder if that was the only way the two dynamics were connected.  What if it was their very faithfulness to Christ that brought on their suffering?  The more I studied, the more I realized this was equally the case.

Jesus not only made it clear that His followers- us included- would face suffering, but that such suffering was a blessing which we should rejoice in.  This is such a contrast to the culture of comfort and social acceptability that Christians in the West largely enjoy.  Some will cite examples of Christian suffering here, like no prayer in school and the like, but these inconveniences are nothing compared the genuine suffering God’s people have faced through history.

Sadly, such suffering was not always at the hands of those who were outside of the faith.  All too often, both in Jesus day and throughout Church history, many Christians who sought to live faithfully according to the way of Jesus found themselves facing the persecution of the larger Christian community.  Jesus knew that follow Him would often put us at odds with the world and the religious authorities alike.  It was a hard truth, but one that was held firmly by His disciples and later followers.

While we do not need to out looking for suffering- nor justify legitimate rejection by the wider world due to our self-righteousness and pride- we must ask ourselves why the church in the West faces so little of the suffering Jesus promised we would see.  Some would argue that our peace is a blessing from God, linking it nationalism or exceptionalism, but an examination of history and Scripture suggests a very different conclusion to me.  While God does blessing us, we must also consider the reality that millions of others worldwide, Christians sisters and brothers included, suffering because of some of our so called “blessings”.

Why should such suffering be a blessing?  When we follow Christ in faith, even in the face of suffering, we are stripped of our pretenses and false-securities.  We realize in tangible ways that we are utterly dependent on Him, and by extension of His Spirit in us, on each other, His Body.  We are blessed because Christ works in and through us to bring us to maturity, not from a distance, but from right along side us.  For before we suffered for Him, He suffered for us, inviting us to join Him in that painful, yet hopeful and redemptive work.

Again, the challenge is not to go looking for suffering, but to instead be unwaveringly bold as together we dare to live out the teachings of Jesus, to follow Him, not just worship Him.  This might sound obvious, but the realities that such a commitment will not only put us at odds with the world, but perhaps even with the status quo of the Christian subculture.  For example, our radical obedience will, like it did with Jesus, bring us into the company of people the church has rejected as sinners, as “unclean”.  Those we love and respect in the faith might rebuke us, even reject us.  And while we are never arrogant, it may require that we defy the norms to be faithful to Christ.

I believe that we are in a crisis of faith in the western church.  We need to rediscover what it means to follow Jesus to any end He calls us to.  We need to be willing to ask the hard questions about what kinds of communities are being produced in our culture- communities of Christ or communities of consumers?  Or communities at all?  I am, however, also hopeful.  I see many people gathering together to live just such obedience.

Shall we join them?

Previous Post – What Is The Church? The Rule of Paul

What Is The Church? Introduction

What Is The Church? Discernment & Discipline – 1

What Is The Church? Disciples Breaking Bread Together – 2

What Is The Church? Baptism & the New Community – 3

What Is The Church? The Fullness of Christ – 4

What Is The Church? The Rule of Paul – 5

Conclusion

Each of these five practices- or rather especially, when these five practices are seen together- lead us to living into the gospel in the whole of our lives and before a watching world.  It is when we see these happening- not as expressions of ritual formality or rigid moral obligation- it is then that we begin to encounter God at work in His world and participate with Him in building His kingdom.

The way each of these practices are engaged helps us dismantle an approach to church life that is built by the assumption (conscious or otherwise) that the “Christian life” is somehow lived apart from the “real world”.  Many people have told me that what we are trying to do a Little Flowers Community is commendable, but surely not very realistic outside of Sunday worship.  It’s upside-down to the real world, they say.  However, we stand with Matt Woodley:

“Maybe the world as we know it is upside down, but we’re so used to it that it seems right side up. When Jesus announced the coming of the kingdom (Mt 4:17), he initiated a revolutionary movement to set things right, to restore this upside down, off-kilter, broken world by turning it right side up.” (from “Gospel of Matthew: God With Us”, IVPress 2011)

Thus, becoming this living alternative in a world where “common sense” suggests otherwise is part of our identity and purpose as a people of Christ. The very fact that it is so very different from the world is what gives it the evangelical authority, offering the hope of a new life never before considered.  For some, this will offend and threaten, thus Christ’s frequent reminders that we should expect and take joy in our suffering for His sake. You cannot make such an absolute allegiance to Christ without alienating the expectations of the state, society, economic systems and much more.

However, many will be drawn to this new way of life as one of hope and peace.  The beauty of it is that, while distinctly Christian, these practices hold powerful appeal to a watching world, providing a way into the life of Christ that doesn’t require them to don the garments of Christendom, but instead can enter in with their own celebrated individuality and gifting.  It is simultaneously counter-cultural where necessary, yet redemptively affirming of who we are as individuals and groups.

Some will say that these practices fail to make the verbal proclamation of the gospel a central practice.  I would suggest that this way of life invariably produces such proclamation as the natural fruit of a life lived in the Spirit.  Further, such proclamation is given authority by the credibility of the people proclaiming it- not only from their love and devotion to Christ, but also in light of the humility and confession in the face of their sin and brokenness.  Rather than a practice that comes alongside these five, I would suggest that proclamation is an overarching given to this kind of Church life.  (As an important aside, the challenge also lies with what we are to be proclaiming as gospel.  To that end, I cannot more strongly endorse to you Scot McKnight’s book “The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited”.)

In our experience, which I do not suggest should be universally applied, such practices have worked best when a community of faith is of a size that allows for the time and energy to embrace these practices.  Further, it requires a willingness to allow for the inefficiency that such formation demands for the great good of the fruit that will be produced in the long term.  It also requires a posture of humility, where the standard of righteousness is emphasized graciously inward, not as a standard for acceptance and embrace (see my post, “Believing, Behaving, Belonging”, which I also explore in more detail in my book, “The Cost of Community”).

These practices are not meant to describe all of what the church is.  Further, they will be practiced differently in different contexts.  Yet, we believe that they provide an essential foundation for being the people of God together, living into our identity and purpose as Christ’s Body.  It is when this is done that God is given the greatest glory before a waiting and watching world.

Does your community embrace these practices in this way?  What would it take to do so?

Previous Post – What Is The Church? The Fullness of Christ

What Is The Church? Introduction

What Is The Church? Discernment & Discipline – 1

What Is The Church? Disciples Breaking Bread Together – 2

What Is The Church? Baptism & the New Community – 3

What Is The Church? The Fullness of Christ – 4

In the previous post we explored how baptism into the Body of Christ draws us together in a generative mutuality, where every person is gifted within the context of the whole.  Such a posture resists hierarchical leadership formation, preferring instead a community of consensus that trust, empowers and submits individuals in their gifting as circumstance dictates.  Such a way of life is a witness to a watching world in its promise of acceptance, love and participation in the the life of God and His community.  In this next post we will engage with the practice of the open meeting, what Yoder calls the rule of Paul.

“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be encouraged.” 1 Corinthians 14:29-31 (NRSV)

For the Apostle Paul, the community was the place in which God’s will was to be discerned, specifically in the very act of common worship.  Further, it is in this context of the worship community that discerning the meaning of Scripture is primarily engaged.  It does not deny academia nor those with unique giftings of teaching, but rather sees those dynamics as in submission to the primary hermeneutic of the community.

It is critical to note that this practice in worship is a natural expression of our identity in the fullness of Christ.  In other words, it is born out of our nature as a people, not primarily as an order for worship.  The implications are this: such a formation of communal mutuality must therefore shape how we function in life in general- our families, businesses, schools, etc.  While we haven’t the time or space to exploring the complexity of this aspect, it is critical that we do not limit this to the worship context alone.  Instead, the worshipful posture of God’s people should touch every aspect of life.

In the post “What Is The Church? Discipline & Discernment”, I shared some ways in which Little Flowers Community engages this practice.  There are times when this approach is chaotic, messy and (seemingly) inefficient.  However, we remind ourselves that such struggle is a product of our brokenness, not inherent to this practice.  In other words, we must resist the impulse to escape into the easier approaches of hierarchical leadership or even democratic decision making.

It is interesting that prior to Pentecost, drawing lots was an acceptable way to discern God’s will, including the choice of who would replace Judas among the twelve.  Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”  In other words, they did not see casting lots as handing things over to chance, but instead trusted in God’s divine intervention to guide the results.  This is a critical point: the disciples would rather trust God’s intervention into drawing lots than to presume upon His will by voting.  Yet, since Pentecost, the fullness of Christ dwells within His people, allowing us discern His will together.

Such a practice acts as a signpost to a watching world that there is something greater than any one individual- even something greater than the sum of our parts.  However, it also extends an invitation into a life of incredible purpose, hope and love.  This is the fullness of life that Christ promises.  This is not to suggest there is a formula that always works and that other methods- even voting- will never work.  Rather it is about the affirmation of who we are in Christ and how that leads us to live.

What does it mean to worship together as a people of Christ?  How do you engage in the fullness of your community in worship and in life?

Previous Post – What Is The Church? Baptism & the New Community

What Is The Church? Introduction

What Is The Church? Discernment & Discipline

What Is The Church? Disciples Breaking Bread Together

What Is The Church? Baptism & the New Community

In the previous post we explored how baptism is less about a personal expression of faith, but rather the public declaration of a new, all-encompassing allegiance that take precedence over all other commitments.  Further, it is a witness to a watching world as we enter into that common life of unity with each other through the humility of repentance and the transformation and hope of grace.  In this next post, we will look at the practice of communities living out their giftings together- what Yoder calls living into the fullness of Christ.

Growing up in a rural community, we often had times where our church couldn’t provide a youth group, so we attended programs offered by other churches.  Therefore, throughout high school, I spent more of Friday nights at a local Pentecostal youth group where I heard a great deal about spiritual gifts, especially speaking in tongues and prophesying.  While my more conservative evangelical community talked about the gifts, it wasn’t with much depth or attention.  It was only years later that I realized that there was more to these dynamics than I had experienced in these two extremes.

However, when the people of God live into their gifting- and it is clear that every person is divinely gifted in some way- they manifest the diverse unity celebrated in baptism.  The Apostle Paul not only affirms that every member brings gifts into the community, but that God’s order often elevated the less honoured members.  The servant is the greatest.  The last will be first.  While we give lip service affirmation to these truths, the functional expression and respect for various giftings in the church rarely reflect that we truly believe (and thus live) these truths.

The challenge in our context comes when we equate individual gifting with individualism.  In other words, people can use the idea of their unique gifting/calling as an excuse to define their commitments and activities outside of community accountability.  Again, built upon the previous post on baptism, we see that our undivided allegiance to Christ and His Body- the community- demands that our giftings be used alongside of and in mutual submission with others in the church.

This leads to an important tension that we must be aware of.  On one hand, this diverse giftedness pushes strongly against leadership models that place expectations on one or a few people to do for the community when they are gifted to do together.  It requires that we all equally own the responsibilities of leadership.  On the other hand, we must avoid the misconception that such mutuality of leadership means no one person should ever be a primary leader.  Instead, we recognize that through circumstance, maturity and calling, there are times that the community honours certain members by submitting to their authority for the greater good.  However, this submission, in and of itself, an expression of shared leadership and not an abdication of responsibility.

At Little Flowers Community, I function as the pastor as an expression of my giftings and sense of vocation.  However, I hold no more power in the community than any other on the merits of that role or gifting.  I am one of many diversely gifted leaders who has been entrusted and empowered to walk out my gifting alongside others doing the same.  We lead by consensus as much as possible, while at times trusting different individuals or groups to take primary leadership as we discern in them the gifting and calling to do so.  (It should be noted that we find democratic means of decision making to be unhelpful, but that is a topic that deserves fuller attention at another time).  It is far from efficient, but the process reflects the formation of being one Body together, seek to let Christ be our head through the guidance of His Holy Spirit.

As a watching world sees us function in this way, they see a beautiful alternative to the systems of religious professionalism that can, intentionally or otherwise, suggest that relationship with God is attainable through the intermediate of pastor, priest, husband, etc.  Further, when the “lesser” gifts (by the measure of the world) are given honour and respect, it offers a stunning affirmation of individuality in a world that pushes us to define our worth in competition and comparison with others.

Yoder suggests that this practice is the one that has most been resisted or ignored by the church.  Why?  Perhaps because this commitment would demand the greatest reforming of how we do life and ministry together as the church.  Such a change could make many feel very threatened and insecure.  However, it is critical, both for the life of the church and its witness in the world.

Have you see this fullness of Christ lived out in community?  What would it take to embrace this in your community?

Previous Post – Top 10 Posts of 2011

What Is The Church? Introduction

What Is The Church? Discernment & Discipline

What Is The Church? Disciples Breaking Bread Together

In the previous post in the series, we explored the significance of the Eucharist in communion.  Looking beyond (though not ignoring) the layers of ritual, tradition and history, we remembered that Christ called us to remember Him through the shared meal of His disciples.  Further, that meal itself becomes a witness of the gracious and humble unity of the church to a watching world.  In this next post, we will engage what Jesus calls us to when He commands us to be baptized into His Body- what Yoder calls baptism and the new humanity.

Like with communion, the individualism in our culture has made baptism primarily an expression of individual piety.  While it is, of course, very personal, it is to be, first and foremost, an act of the person entering into a new community.  In 2 Cor. 5:16-17, some translations say being in Christ makes you a “new creature”, yet Yoder argues that it is more accurately translated in a larger, plural context, such as seen in the NIV:

“So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (emphasis added)

In other words, everything is changed.  Centrally, baptism radically calls us to a transformed fidelity.  Where are our allegiances?  When we emerge from the waters of baptism, we emerge as part of the singular new creation, namely as the Body of Christ.  We are His (and in a way, we are Him), thus making all other commitments, loyalties and identity second to the faithfulness we devote to Christ.  It should be noted that this is not license to neglect other commitments, such as family, but rather that all other commitments come under the primary commitment to God.  It is our strongest tie through which all others are either subservient or cut off.

This radical faithfulness to Christ then extends to each other as members of His Body, for we are no longer irreconcilably “other” to each other.  Instead, our otherness finds place and identity as unique and diverse expressions of the member of Christ’s Body.  Yet, our otherness mired in sin always divided us.  It would tempting to seek unity through the eradication of otherness, but that would be no different than walking out on spouse and children because we say they violate our commitment to Christ.  Our otherness is caught up in the new creation, becoming, through the grace and redemption of Jesus, a central aspect of our unity.

Thus, such faithfulness- and love- for God and each other requires a commitment to forgiveness, grace and humility.  We are to leave in the waters of baptism any enmity, fear, hate- anything that holds on to a concept of otherness- ours and/or others- that divides rather than unites.  This sounds far easier than it is- race, gender, socioeconomic differences, sexual orientation, etc.- each seeks to become the exception to the rule, allowing us to reject, alienate or subjugate the other.  The new creation in which we are reborn is a kingdom life and such dis-integration has no place.

Many members of Little Flowers Community are already baptized.  When we explored this new meaning, a few people suggested that we all get re-baptized.  Unfamiliar with Anabaptist history, they did not see the humour in their suggestion.  However, their desire for living into a baptism of this understanding is laudable.  Our commitment to pursue that shared life of the new creation is an important aspect of how we live in and relate to our neighbourhood and city.  While far from perfect, our community models a life of redeemed (and redeeming) otherness in some exceptional ways.

To avoid any shallow romanticism about these dynamics in our community, let me be clear: the unified otherness we seek to live into is complicated, messy and prone to failure.  We are all too often tempted ignore our differences.  Other times we are drawn to drown out differences towards some “ideal” of unity that is merely uniformity.  Perhaps most tempting to us is to put on the guise of celebrating our diversity without ever facing the hard and defining work that such difference invariably requires of us.  It requires repentance every time.

However, when we do the hard work that baptism calls us into, we have the opportunity of living a unity that is neither triumphant or idealistic.  It admits our failures, forgives our oppressors, unites around a singular devotion, yet all the while holds onto the best of redeemed diversity.  If we dare to live this way before a watching world, baptism and the new community of Christ is a powerful witness.

If you’ve been baptized, what did it mean to you?  Has your understanding changed?

Do you believe baptism of this kind can be a transforming witness to the world?

Previous Post – What Is The Church? Discernment & Discipline

In the previous post we explored what it meant to be a community of discernment and discipline, positing an alternative community and leadership structure over and against the more coercive power structures of hierarchical systems.  Further, we saw that it produces communities of humility and confession that represent a missional witness to a watching world.  In this next post, we will engage what it means to participate in Eucharist (or Communion or the Lord’s Supper).  Yoder calls this practice as the disciples breaking bread together.

As a child, when we sat in church during a communion service, I would hear Jesus’s words to “do this in remembrance of me”.  While I knew that He said this while sitting at a table (albeit, all of them sitting crowded on one side), I presumed that He leading His disciples in the familiar practice that was happening in front of me.  In time, I learned that centuries of ritual, conflict, culture and tradition stood between my communion experience and the table where Jesus broke break with His disciples.

The change started when I began to understand the Passover feast (which we do not have the time to explore here).  What stood out to me about this practice (along with many other Jewish traditions) was that this deeply sacred meal was integrated into the context of life and home, not set apart as a ritual largely set apart from life.  The need to “sacramentalize” the so-called mundane aspects of life became very clear.  However, even then, because of how Jesus’s followers went on to engage in this practice, it was clear that Jesus was not simply calling us to remember Him during Passover (which is only an annual event).

Instead, Jesus was calling His followers to remember Him when we came together as His people to share a meal together.  Yoder wrote in an essay:

“Our history of centuries of speculation and controversy about what happens to bread and wine when a certain special person speaks certain special Latin words over them obscured from our memory for a long time the fact that the primary  meaning of the Eucharistic gathering in the Gospel and Acts is economic. It was the fulfillment of the promise of the Magnificat that the rich would give up their advantages and the poor would be well fed. Luke’s report probably is intended to signal the fulfillment of the mandate of Deuteronomy that “there should be no poor among you.”

In our western culture, food (and meals) are far less significant, often nothing more than entertainment.  Thus, the idea of pulling Communion out of the ritual of the church worship context and incorporating it into a common meal would seem to diminish its sacredness.  Instead, we are called to rediscover and reinvest the sacred into the shared meal.  In fact, the way church gathers should arguably reorganize around this central act of worship, where hospitality return as an essential practice of the faith.

At Little Flowers Community, the shared meal is the central act of worship in our church.  Each brings what they can for a very eclectic collection of food that we share freely with one another.  Rich, poor, mentally ill or social awkward- all of us come together in the round, explicitly for our shared love for and devotion to Jesus, and celebrate Him through “feasting”.

However, the intimacy, celebration and unity that is displayed in that shared meal is a deeply attractive experience.  As people outside of the church meet us, see that intimacy, participate in our common meal, they taste and see the goodness of God.  They are not drawn by the piety of the group, but rather by the genuine love and community.  Communion, then, becomes a beautiful invitation (and opportunity) for people to begin to enter into the redemptive work of Christ.

And what better way to demonstrate the fullness of the redemptive work than Communion?  As we remember Christ’s sacrifice, we celebrate the hope of reconciliation with God.  Further, as the means of that reconciliation is to die to self and to be resurrected together as His Body, it also opens the door for genuine relationship with one another.  In this love of God and others, we can truly discover the fullness of life as individuals, uniquely known and love by God and others.  Even the redemption of creation is celebrated as the bread and wine- substance of the earth itself- is the medium by which we enact this work of restoration.

For many, participating in Communion is a private piety between the individual and God.  Has that been your experience?  Has that changed?  If so why?

What does Communion mean to you and your community?

Previous Post – What Is The Church? Exploring Body Politics

The terms “discernment” and “discipline” can seem daunting- especially the latter of the two.  However, I believe that these challenges are not largely due to the nature of these practices themselves, but due to the way they are used within Christian contexts that utilize systems of coercion and authoritarianism typical of Christendom expressions.  Therefore, if we can try to somewhat extricate ourselves from those dynamics, what would these dynamic disciplines look like?

Yoder brings these two together through use of Matthew 18:15-20, which reads:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

In this text we see the connection between correction within the Body of Christ and practice of community discernment, namely that the community is called to discern together the will and way of following Christ, even (and perhaps especially) with respect to sin in the community.

First, we must recognize that the primary posture of correction in this text is one of resolution, restoration and reconciliation.  While this might seem an obvious emphasis, in practice the church all too commonly allows punitive values to become primary in the purpose and process of discipline.  While punishment is valid and often necessary, even it should be practiced with the design and intent to bring restoration to both the wrong-doer, the recipients of their wrong and the community as a whole.

The mutuality of the process means that, unlike the systems of justice we see in the world, we do not isolate the wrong doer from either the process of correction or as a means of punishment (except as last resort). While we rightly seek to protect the victims, the pattern of reconciliation manifested in Christ’s death and resurrection calls for the radical participation of everyone in the healing process.  This must be done with great care, compassion and wisdom.  This is a guiding understanding, not a rule.  There are certainly exceptions to how it is exercised.  However, when it possible, the humility and grace displayed in the context of community stands as a powerful beckon of hope to a watching world.  This is, in part, what makes Alcoholics Anonymous so widely respected.

However, even more fundamental in this text is the presupposed politic of the people of God.  When the intervention of others was necessary in the process of restorative correction, Jesus taught to widen the circle to include others in the community, then further to include the whole community.  While we will get into the pragmatics of how this works, we must not miss the implications: no hierarchy or formal leadership was pursued in this process of discipline.  Or rather, the authority that it was brought to was the authority Christ intended, the discerning community.

At Little Flowers Community, we seek to make decision together as a community.  For us, this often means resisting two impulses.  On the one side, we resist the urge to expediate these processes through either retreating into democracy, instead working through the difficult process of consensus through discernment.  On the other, we resist the urge to relegate our responsibility by leaving it in the hands of a hierarchical authority structure.  This does not mean that there are not leaders.  We often often submit (through discernment) to the authority of those whose gifting best equips them to help us navigate a given situation.  Their authority is never absolute and it is not positional.  Therefore, my role as pastor in the community gives me more authority only insofar as my gifting is being expressed within the context of the larger community of differently gifted, yet equal leaders.

Further, the level of trust and commitment in our church means that many of us also submit to the wisdom of the discerning community even when making important personal decisions.  We recognize that the mutuality discussed above extends to the whole of our lives.  This flies in the face of the individualism and “rights” mentalities of our culture (which we wrestle with as much as anyone else), but has also produced a way of sharing life together- in essence, living Christ together in the fullness of who we are.

How is church discipline handled in your church community?  Is it primarily punitive or restorative?

How does your community make decisions

UPDATE: Here are a couple of quotes by Yoder that I think flesh this out a bit more:

“There is no distinction between major offenses and minor ones: Any offense is forgivable, but none is trivial”

While this might sound obvious, the fact is that we often screen out issues of reconciliation through a grid in which we dismiss smaller issues as unimportant.  However, in the guise of being quietly forgiving, we are simply avoiding the discomfort of participating in the mundane work of redemption.

“The intention is not to protect the church’s reputation or to teach onlookers the seriousness of sin, but only to serve the offender’s own well-being by restoring her or him to the community.”

These are all too often the primary motivations for church discipline.  The inverse of the above quote is that, towards the end of the offenders restoration, the community must be willing to sully it’s perceived reputation and to suffer the misunderstanding and indignation of the “older brother” Christians within the community.