• home
  • about
  • books
  • links

Archive for the ‘Peace’ Category

« Older Entries

Little Flowers Community & Anabaptist Convictions

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

Previous Post – Blogs & Reviews: A Publisher’s Thoughts

flowers logo

When we decided to partner with Mennonite Church Manitoba to plant Little Flowers Community, one of the core reasons for doing so was a sense of resonance with Anabaptist values and beliefs.  Interestingly, the longer we explore this connection, the more convinced we have become that it is significant, even though almost none us grew up within an Anabaptist tradition.  In addition to the “unchurched” and new believers, we have people who grew up in United, Baptist, Evangelical Covenant, Anglican, Pentecostal and others.

A Mennonite friend recently asked me what it actually meant to us to be Anabaptist.  It was a good question, which I answered as best I could at the time.  Since then I’ve started reading Stuart Murray’s upcoming book “The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith”, which explores seven core convictions of Anabaptism and how they relate to the whole Church.  While each chapter unpacks them in more detail, I thought it would be interesting to reflect on them as they relate to Little Flowers.

1. Jesus is our example, teacher, friend, redeemer, and Lord. He is the source of our life, the central reference point for our faith and lifestyle, for our understanding of church, and our engagement with society. We are committed to following Jesus as well as worshiping him.

While I think most Christians would affirm such a statement, what this has meant for us is that we want to be more intentional about following the example and teachings of Christ in our daily lives.  Beyond living moral lives where we observed the expected Christian practices, few of us were discipled into a way of life that sought to do much of what Jesus taught, such as in the Sermon on the Mount.

Thus far, Little Flowers has been exploring Jesus teachings (most recently with an emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount), intentionally seeking to embrace the values and practices in tangible ways.  We believe that we are, together, an incarnational expression of Christ’s Body to our community, thus committed to actively continuing Christ’s mission to our neighbours.  This has been very rewarding, but difficult as we also wrestle with our own brokenness and sin.

2. Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centered approach to the Bible, and to the community of faith as the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.

With the conviction that we are to collectively embody the presence of Christ to our community, it means that the whole community contributes to the process of discipleship and discernment.  We affirm that different ones of us function in different giftings, but resist any hierarchy of value or authority in those giftings.  To that end, while I function as the pastor, I refuse to claim exclusive (or even primary) rights to administering the sacraments or teaching the word.  Yes, my responsibility means I have a degree of authority in that role, but it is not absolute nor any more important than the authority of the other giftings/roles.

It has also meant that, as we explore Scripture together, the teaching is very conversational- interactive and participative.  This allows everyone to bring their unique perspective, while always seeking to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit in guiding us.  Again, my studying and understanding are respected in the community, but this does not mean that I am the final authority on all truth.  A time of worship with us is less than typical, but it is very generative and multifaceted.

3. Western culture is slowly emerging from the Christendom era, when church and state jointly presided over a society in which almost all were assumed to be Christian. Whatever its positive contributions on values and institutions, Christendom seriously distorted the gospel, marginalized Jesus, and has left the churches ill equipped for mission in a post-Christendom culture. As we reflect on this, we are committed to learning from the experience and perspectives of movements such as Anabaptism that rejected standard Christendom assumptions and pursued alternative ways of thinking and behaving.

In some ways, our inner city context lives in extremes in relation to Christendom.  On the one hand, as many of our neighbours are First Nations or immigrants, they have been subject to the some of the more costly aspects of colonialism.  For many, their relationship to the Church has been as recipients of charity, though some times, also of judgment.  On the other hand, because our community often functions on the margins of society, they are not impacted by many aspects of life at the center.

For those of us who have committed to Little Flowers, we decided that we would share life with our neighbours, making the community our own.  While attempting to enter into the fabric of the neighbourhood, we also intentionally extended hospitality to others, which can mean anything from sharing a meal together or having a homeless friend live with us for a few months.  These relationships form with greater ease when we participate on the margins of culture.

4. The frequent association of the church with status, wealth, and force is inappropriate for followers of Jesus and damages our witness. We are committed to exploring ways of being good news to the poor, powerless, and persecuted, aware that such discipleship may attract opposition, resulting in suffering and sometimes ultimately martyrdom.

We have not experienced much opposition for our commitments, but it has meant sacrifice.  In choosing to live more simply, for example, we don’t merely make token sacrifices, but rather relinquish our right to the privileges we are so used to.  We realized that it is not enough to abstain from status, wealth and force on occasion, but rather to embrace it entirely.

This is not an easy one, but we are working to embrace it more every.  For some it has meant moving into intentional community, becoming ethical consumers or giving away much of their possessions.  As we do this and other things, we find that the difference between “us” and “the poor” diminishes, as we share mutual life and faith with people of all walks of life.  This has been very, very difficult for us.

5. Churches are called to be committed communities of discipleship and mission, places of friendship, mutual accountability, and multivoiced worship. As we eat together, sharing bread and wine, we sustain hope as we seek God’s kingdom together. We are committed to nurturing and developing such churches, in which young and old are valued, leadership is consultative, roles are related to gifts rather than gender, and baptism is for believers.

While our time of worship is important each week, our community is more defined by the relationships we share throughout the week.  This relational commitment to each other is part of our missional devotion, submitting to very real mutual accountability.  As was mentioned earlier, we lead as a community, believing that the Holy Spirit best opens God will and His written Word through the context of that community.

6. Spirituality and economics are interconnected. In an individualist and consumerist culture and in a world where economic injustice is rife, we are committed to finding ways of living simply, sharing generously, caring for creation, and working for justice.

Again, as already mentioned earlier, we believe that when the mission of Jesus is the organizing function of our community then we relinquish our rights to such things as materialism and individualism.  While we do not have a “common purse” out of which we live, generosity often blurs the lines of ownership.  Further, in seeking to live simply, we have began to do community gardening, which not only provides healthy and inexpensive food, but also allows us to relate more meaningfully to creation.

7. Peace is at the heart of the gospel. As followers of Jesus in a divided and violent world, we are committed to finding nonviolent alternatives and to learning how to make peace between individuals, within and among churches, in society, and between nations.

Starting within our own relationships, we are committed to keeping short accounts with conflict.  Extending from our open commitment to each other, which requires honesty, humility and confession, we also hope to extend that shalom to our community.  In a neighbourhood where violence is rampant, this has been a real challenge, but one in which we are continuing to pursue.

It should be noted, however, that we do not pursue peace because it is pragmatic.  That is, we do not pursue peace because “it works”.  While those who embrace peace experience many blessings as a result, in a sinful world it is also likely to get your hurt or worse.  We are committed to peace, not because it works, but because it is right.  Thus, our commitment comes with a willingness to suffer for that conviction.  Thankfully none of us has suffered too personally for such a commitment, though we have come close to it many times.

(NOTE: We’ve set up a Facebook group about The Naked Anabaptist.  Check it out here.  Well worth it.)

Naked Anabaptist cover.indd

Tags: Anabaptism, Missional
Posted in Church Planting, Community, Missional, Peace, church | 7 Comments »

Avatar: My Thoughts

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Previous Post -Future of the Emerging Church

When I stepped out of the theatre after watching James Cameron’s record breaking film “Avatar”, I was conflicted.  Without question this movie raised the bar with respect to the experience of cinema.  It was visually stunning and engaging.  It kept my attention and, on the merits of the brilliant technology used for the 3D experience, I was drawn into the science fiction world of the Na’vi people.  If you are going to see this film at all, it should be seen on the big screen in 3D.

That being said, I also left feeling dissatisfied and, frankly, pissed off.  First, there was this nagging feeling that I had seen this film before, some scenes explicitly familiar.  It was only later when a friend mentioned “Fern Gully” that it became laughingly clear.  (If you haven’t seen “Fern Gully”, but have seen Avatar, it would worth the laugh to watch it to see the parallels).  I was also bothered by how both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” were portrayed.  The Na’vi culture seemed like a pop culture buffet of indigenous worldviews, dripping of the “noble savage” that I thought we had long since moved past.  The military men were so evil, I half expected them rub their hands together maniacally and break out in a Bela Lugosi laugh.  I had hoped for (though not expected) something of more substance in this visual masterpiece.  And I was disappointed.

Recently, the film has drawn fire from Conservatives who denounce the film for a liberal propaganda machine designed to push some nefarious agenda.  Scot McKnight points out 5 complaints about the film, asking for his readers input (for which this post is my extended reply).  Note, I’ve changed the order Scot listed them, putting “Worship of nature” directly after “Pro-environment”, as I feel they strongly inform each other:

  • Pro-environment
  • Worship of nature
  • Anti-religious
  • Liberal, left-wing agenda
  • Anti-military

Pro-environment: There is no question that the current cultural interest in environmentalism is foundational in this films message.  While I am sure that Cameron believes in this cause, I’m also convinced that it was included because it is a highly marketable idea these days.  As someone who believe that we are not caring for creation in the way God mandated us to, I resonate with this theme.  However, I am not an “environmentalist” per se.  I believe that Christians need to understand and practice a relationship to creation that surpasses the activism of the environmentalism, even though I believe it is an issue of injustice that Scripture requires us to respond to.  I think people (both Christian and otherwise) are looking for something beyond the activism, which leads into the next point.

Worship of nature: Cameron’s generous blending of shallowly appropriated indigenous culture/belief with popular environmentalism is quite apparent from the get go.  There is no question that the Na’vi people of Pandora hold to a pantheistic belief system that is informed by Gaia-type worship.  This connects well with the environmentalist theme, as the Gaia hypothesis has been a notable influence in the movement.  From a Christian standpoint, there are beliefs put forth that are clearly contrary to what we believe.  While this should makes us more intentional about talking about such differences, I don’t see that they should be viewed as a threat.

However, we should make note of this synthesis of environmentalism and spirituality.  As mentioned above, there is a clear longing in our culture for something deeper to inform our environmental convictions.  I believe this is borne from an undefinable conviction that we are connected to creation on a spiritual level.  Not in a Gaian, new age sort of way.  Rather, our connection to creation as laid out in Scripture has been lost to the often gnostic leanings of Western Christianity.  If Cameron’s film is a threat, it is because we have failed to offer a meaningful alternative.  So much more could be said about this one, but for the sake of space, I’ll move on.

Anti-religious: After the last point, this one seems even more ridiculous.  At best, this critique comes from an understanding of religion as highly formalized institutions (which makes the integrative spirituality of the Na’vi suspect).  At it worst, this critique is borne from a fear of any idea or belief that is not explicitly Christian- and by Christian, I mean Western, modern Christianity.  In an increasingly pluralistic world, Christians need to learn to better relate to people with differing beliefs.  This is not to say we should not argue convincingly for our own convictions, but rather recognize and address the posture of suspicion and fear that informs our responses.

Again, Cameron shallowly picks and chooses from indigenous beliefs here, offering a romanticized mishmash of spirituality.  This, in itself, is a greater threat to people than the actual beliefs themselves.  I would rather people explore a spiritual belief system in depth than to be lured into something through romantic and shallow appropriation of ideas.  I suspect that many people have embraced Christianity for the same reasons, usually to ultimately ill effects for the larger Church.

Liberal, left-wing agenda: This complaint has two parts.  To the first, that the film is liberal, there is no question.  By this I mean that there are values that are championed in the film that are more commonly (though no exclusively) championed on the political left.  Cameron doesn’t strike me as a man whose politics would be too hard to pin down.  However, as someone who doesn’t fall clearly into either the so-called “right” or “left”, there is not threat here.  If you equate Christian belief with a predominantly right-wing political stance, then we disagree strongly and this point is moot (as it is if you equate Christianity with the left).  Let us also not forget the marketability of left leaning ideas in films, clearly influencing the direction the film would take.

As for it having a “left-wing agenda”, I can only roll my eyes.  Whenever we want to demonize something, all we have to do is accuse them of having an “agenda”, colouring the whole thing in a questionable, conspiratorial light.  If Cameron had an agenda with this film, I suspect it would be for it to be commercially and popularly successful.  Would he be happy if the film made people more mindful of environmental issues or military policy?  Of course, but I hardly think that was at the top of his list nor worthy of accusations of subversion.  Like other religious beliefs, we have to learn to live alongside other political ideologies as well, careful not to demonize (or venerate) any one perspective.

Anti-military: As a Christian with strong Franciscan and Anabaptist leanings, I hold a strong critique of military powers and of violence in particular.  That being said, I did feel that the characterization of the military in the film was over the top.  While Cameron says he was not trying to parallel the US military, I cannot see how it would be possible for any viewer to NOT come to that conclusion.  In addition to the disrespect it shows to honest soldiers, it allows us the scapegoat of identifying “sin” in only extreme categories, thus freeing us from responsibility.  Further, as someone who advocates non-violence, any caricatures undermine meaningful discussion about the myth of redemptive violence.  While this film takes advantage of the publics disillusionment with military involvement in Iraq, it is by no means anti-war.  Though not unexpected, it was still disappointing.

Much more could be said about this film, such as the white man still being the ultimate hero, identifying with the indigenous people in well-intentioned, but incredibly condescending ways.  As I said earlier, it was a visually stunning epic that kept my attention like few other films have.  Should we uncritically embrace its message?  Of course not.  In all things we need to be discerning and careful.  Should we dismiss it or embrace it as mere entertainment?  Only at our own peril.  Movies function as a deeply influential mythology in our culture, shaping the way we think and act.  Again, we need to discerning and careful.  However, to use this film as ammo to fire at our perceived political and/or religious adversaries is both foolish and counter-productive.

Tags: Avatar, culture, Film, movies, politics, religion
Posted in Film, Missional, Peace | 22 Comments »

« Older Entries
  • No public Twitter messages.
    Follow Me

  • You are currently browsing the archives for the Peace category.

    • Adoption (5)
    • Advent (1)
    • Anabaptism (6)
    • Bible (13)
    • Books (39)
    • church (24)
    • Church Planting (25)
    • Community (87)
    • Discipleship (10)
    • Easter (1)
    • emerging church (3)
    • Evangelism (11)
    • Film (7)
    • Gospel (16)
    • Justice (52)
    • Leadership (6)
    • Missional (130)
    • Money (6)
    • Pastors (3)
    • Peace (14)
    • Personal (6)
    • prayer (3)
    • St. Francis (18)
    • Third Place (6)
    • Uncategorized (241)
    • 2010
    • 2009
    • 2008
    • 2007

A Living Alternative Our Missional Pilgrimage is proudly powered by WordPress
Site Design by SoloDesign.ca
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).