Previous Post – When Mission Becomes An Idol

This past week has been a very generative week for online discussion here, especially around the conversation that David Fitch, Wendy McCaig & I have been having about David’s proposed Luke 10 Project.  (Wendy posted here & here, I posted here)  Today, David responded to Wendy in a post called “I Love Asset-Based Community Development but it’s not the Church”.  He sums up his point here:

“I affirm asset based community development as God’s work, but I personally place more emphasis on planting local communities of Mission where people gather to witness to “the Kingdom” (it’s my calling, while still applauding those called to ABCD). Through the humble gospel presence of communities of Christ, we participate in what God is already doing in our local context to bring the Kingdom into visibility.”

I am with David on this.  A wholesale adoption of ABCD can muddle the mission of the church in a local context.  David does not accuse Wendy of this (and I think Wendy would largely accept David’s cautions about ABCD), but as I have said previously, I am not sure the division between these two dynamics needs to be so pronounced.  This is where I think a better understanding and engagement of shalom is critical.  ABCD is to shalom what activism is to justice- important expressions, but not to be mistaken for the fullest or primary models.

In Matthew 5:9, Jesus states, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be call sons of God”.  For Jesus, the peace he is referring to is all-encompassing, including health, harmony and justice that even extended to his enemies- in short, he is talking about shalom.  John Driver defines shalom like this:

“It meant well-being, or health, or salvation in its fullest sense, material as well as spiritual. It described the situation of well-being which resulted from authentically whole (healed) relationships among people, as well as between persons and God. According to the Old Testament prophets, shalom reigned in Israel when there was social justice, when the cause of the poor and the weak was vindicated, when there was equal opportunity for all, in short, when the people enjoyed salvation according to the intention of God expressed in his covenant.”

With this, Jesus puts to rest the notion that his people are called to only (or even primarily) the spiritual needs of the world, to “save souls.” Shalom destroys the false dichotomy between the so-called social gospel and spiritual gospel, leaving instead the fullness of God’s truly good news for all of creation. An emphasis on either end of the spectrum that excludes or minimizes the other misses the heart of the true gospel. We must resist the temptation to reduce or simplify the gospel in order to make it more accessible or acceptable; we must seek to embrace it in this fullness.

Therefore, shalom provides the paradigm in which the tensions that David names can find resolution and expression.  As church communities embrace their vocations as makers of shalom, grounded on the source that shalom (and not merely out of altruism or spiritual activism, though both have a place), we will begin to enter into the mutual transformation with our neighbours and our neighbourhood in ways that reflect the present and coming kingdom.

Does this paradigm help bring the two perspectives that Wendy & Dave present?  Does this further complicate matters?  What do you think?

Previous Post – Faith, Poverty & Mental Illness

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” – Matthew 5:43-48

It is a stunning and confronting truth that the very first record of Jesus ever speaking about love, He calls us to the seemingly impossible: to love our enemy.  Let’s be clear, in the previous verses Jesus makes it clear that our enemies are those who hate us, never those whom we hate.  We are to love those who least deserve it from us.

To add to the indignity, Jesus also commands us to prayer for those who make us suffer.  Again, let’s not be too quick to miss the significance of this.  We get complacent in our understanding of Scripture through over familiarity.  To pray for our enemies is to intercede for them before God- to stand between them and God, pleading for mercy for their abuse of us.

Yesterday a friend of mine told me that the night before he watched his friend severely beaten.  He wanted to intervene, but he could not because someone held a gun to his head.  No one was shot, but the wounds went far deeper than the bruises and cuts his friend endured.  They were powerless.

Several of us found ourselves in the terrifying place of pleading with our friend not to retaliate with a drive-by shooting.  The endless cycle of gang violence would only grow, perpetuating itself.  But he was angry, understandably, justifiably angry.  I could not bring myself to be upset with him- concerned, yes!  But not angry.  I was furious at the thought of what he had experienced.

In the end, when our friend saw his own words- words of his deep and true faith in Christ that he had posted online some time ago- he finally stood down and promised not to do anything stupid.  Does he love his enemy?  No, but he took a step away from hate and violence.  And we took that step with him.  It is all too easy for me to miss the depth and cost of Jesus’ command to love our enemies, especially from the relative comfort and privilege of my race, gender, socio-economic status, etc.  Yet the command is no less pertinent for me.  No less difficult.

“So this morning, as I look into your eyes, and into the eyes of all of my brothers in Alabama and all over America and over the world, I say to you, ‘I love you. I would rather die than hate you.’ And I’m foolish enough to believe that through the power of this love somewhere, men of the most recalcitrant bent will be transformed. And then we will be in God’s kingdom. We will be able to matriculate into the university of eternal life because we had the power to love our enemies, to bless those persons that cursed us, to even decide to be good to those persons who hated us, and we even prayed for those persons who despitefully used us.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Previous Post – Chiara House Building

So often when I hear stories from those who have witnessed, survived and/or participated in the genocide in Rwanda, I find myself overwhelmed.  The level of violence and death is beyond my scope to comprehend.  Equally as overwhelming are those amazing and humbling stories of grace, forgiveness and love that are happening there as well.  And yet, I often find that making the connection to my own life and context can be a stretch.

“Forgiving As We’ve Been Forgiven: Community Practices for Making Peace” bridges this gap beautifully.  Authors Greg Jones (Duke University) and Célestin Musekura (ALARM Inc.) bring together their very unique, but paralleled understanding and experience to offer something that can speak to everyone.  Jones enters into Musekura’s story discovering how people can practice forgiveness in all situations- but it in the midst of genocide or in everyday circumstances of our “normal” lives. As the IVPress website promises: “Together they demonstrate that forgiving and being forgiven are mutually reciprocating practices that lead to transformation and healing.”

I should note here that this book is one of several books by IVPress in the Resources for Reconciliation:

“Friendship at the Margins: Discovering Mutuality in Service & Mission” by Chris Heuertz & Christine Pohl

“Living Gently in a Violent World: The Prophetic Witness of Weakness” by Stanley Hauerwas & Jean Vanier

“Reconciling All Things: A Christian Vision for Justice, Peace and Healing” by Emmanuel Katongole & Chris Rice

“Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Toward Beloved Community” by John Perkins & Charles Marsh

Having read several, I can safely say that this series is an important one, bring together the wisdom and experience leading theologians with that of grass-roots practitioners.  A great resources to be had.

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

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.)

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.

Previous Post – Family Ties

• Setting the Stage – SOTM (1)
• Beatitudes Part 1 – SOTM (2)

This week at Little Flowers Community, we continued our series on the Sermon on the Mount (SOTM) by tackling the last of the Beatitudes.  It was a larger portion for one evening of discussion, but it was really encouraging.  So let’s dive right in:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled”

When most of hear the word “righteousness”, what usually comes to mind is the idea of moral and ethical uprightness.  While this idea is important and certainly a part of the broader understanding of righteousness, it doesn’t best represent the meaning of the word.  As we dug in on the word, we discovered that one of the best summations of what it means is found in Matthew 22:37-40, which says:

• Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

True righteousness in this context is about action and relationship- that is right relationship with God and neighbour.  For many of Jesus’ listeners, the words of Micah 6:8 would have sounded in their hearts & minds: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” So while moral & ethical uprightness is important, it is the natural by product of truly loving God & neighbour, living lives of justice, mercy & humility.

This life of pro-active compassion & justice is something that Jesus says we must hunger & thirst for.  In an age and culture of pet obesity, it is difficult for most of us to truly understand genuine hunger or thirst.  However, to the desert people of Israel whose history was tied to survival in a harsh & unforgiving wilderness, Jesus words were powerful.  This kind of active righteousness is something for which our very survival depends, therefore inspiring us to pursue it a near desperate urgency.

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy”

When we look at the life and teachings of Christ, we can see two basic meanings for the idea of mercy.  Rirst, an active compassion for the suffering, regardless of the subjects “worthiness” to receive that compassion.  In this first meaning we must recognize that compassion is not simply an emotion.  While conceived in the heart, it because genuine only insofar as it is born in our active will.  Feeling compassion for the suffering is important, but ultimately empty if we fail to respond in some meaningful way.  In fact, to feel real compassion but fail to act is, in many ways, worse than no compassion at all.

Second, mercy refers to the forgiveness of others, just as we received forgiveness from God.  While this might seem to be an easy value to embrace in the face of petty offenses, the reality is that it is monumentally difficult.  We called to forgive others, even in the face of the worst of sins, yet most of us have a hard time letting go of the anger of being cut off in traffic.  This radical forgiveness is offensive to our sensibilities.  Consider how the Jews of Jesus day felt on hearing this, knowing that His teachings extended to their Roman oppressors.  Even from the cross, Jesus extended forgiveness.  Are we that committed to extending mercy?

It is from that declaration of Jesus on the cross that we learn the hard truth of this lesson.  This Beatitude promises that we will be shown mercy, yet clearly Jesus suffered and died horrifically.  The mercy we are promised in mercy extended by God.  It is not a promise that, should we take the moral high road and extend mercy to others that they will then show mercy to us.  In fact, as Jesus life proved, the path He walked (and calls us to follow) leads inevitably to the cross.

So we must ask ourselves: Are we actively pursuing lives of compassion to a suffering, but often ungrateful world?  Will we extend forgiveness to others, even when they don’t do likewise?  Will we hold true to this grace when we are rewarded with suffering?  We must.

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God”

Judaism is a purity culture, evident in the many and complex purity laws found in the Old Testament.  When Jesus referenced purity, He was speaking to a people well aware of all that was involved.  However, by referring to purity in heart, Jesus  reminded the Jews that purity was not merely the fulfillment of these external obligations, but rather that the external was the fruit produced from inner commitment (Psalm 24:3-4).  We often find Jesus’ rebuking the religious leaders for failing to see this very important distinction.

What was Jesus referring to when He used the word “heart”?  At Little Flowers we often refer to this idea by mentioning the 3 H’s: Head, Heart & Hands.  That is,  our minds, our wills and our emotions.  (To help you remember, think of Dorothy’s 3 companions on her journey home: the Scarecrow who had no mind, the Tin Man who had no heart and the Cowardly Lion who lacked the will to act) Purity of heart, then, is when these three dynamics of submitted to the heart, mind and will of God.

When this happens, we are told that we will see God.  Again, as we look at Scripture, we see that people could not look at the fullness of God without dying.  Even those who saw His glory in part had to veil their faces from others as a result.  Jesus words would have been powerful to the Jews considering these realities.  While He was not promising that they would look upon God in His fullness with their naked eyes, He was promising them that they would come to know God in deeper and truer ways.  And like those great men of old, their natures would be changed by that knowledge and reflected to those who saw them and how they lived.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be call sons of God”

The word “peacemaker” is only used this once in Scripture, making it something of mystery.  As we studied different books and resources on this verse, we saw that many scholars often quick brushed over this verse as though they didn’t know what to say.  Others came up with wildly different interpretations.  We realized that this point would need much more thought & discussion as a community.

We realized that the implications of the word “peacemaker” suggested a proactive calling that meant far more than just “being peaceful” or “keeping the peace”.  The violence we are meant to confront is more than just physical, but also cultural, racial, etc.  We also realized that peace is more than the absence of violence, but the presence of God’s shalom.  The work of the peacemaker is one that demands deep commitment, passion and a great deal of courage.

What does it mean, then, to be call “sons [or children] of God”?  So familiar with a faith that calls God Father, we often fail to see how radical God’s love for us is.  When God made His covenant with Abraham, He was extending a value on people (and the individual) that was unprecedented.  Further, more than just making a covenant that reflect value, He extended His identity onto us as His children.  That this identity is more significantly discovered in the work of peacemaking tells us something very critical about His nature and character.

“Blessed are those who persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you”

Jesus wraps of the Beatitudes with a closer that any salesman would tell you is a huge mistake.  Why finish with the promise of suffering?  The word “blessed” gets lost in the dire implications of what we will face.  However, not only are we called blessed, but we are commanded to rejoice and be glad!

Loving God and loving others as Christ does, calling us to be active peacemakers and advocates of justice, will put us at odds with the principalities and powers.  It will inevitably mean suffering and persecution.  However, we have to be careful here.  First, we are not called to go look for suffering.  Second, and more importantly, just because people mistreat you doesn’t mean you are doing God’s will.  Many Christians act with ignorance and arrogance, inspiring many to reject them (and sadly the Gospel) as a result.  This is NOT what Jesus is referring to.

These final Beatitudes are the culmination of the previous: we are called to be humble, compassion, just, peacemakers, etc., and when this leads to suffering, we are not called to respond with vengeance or retaliation, but with these same qualities, except now with rejoicing and gladness.  I imagine many people listening to Jesus walked away at this point, as their hopes for a militant Messiah in Him disappeared.  In the same way, far fewer people will embrace the calling of Christ in the face of these realities.  However, we must never underplay the realities in order to make Christianity more attractive.  Clearly Jesus did not, so how can we?

Next week is the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, so we will be taking a break from the SOTM series until the following week.  Hope this has been a helpful to you as it has to us.

Previous Post – Weekend Linkage #9

Last week at Little Flowers Community we did our intro to the Sermon On The Mount (SOTM) series exploring Matthew 4 to set the stage.  This week we jumped into Matthew 5:1-5, the first few Beatitudes.

A quick online search on the SOTM turns up massive amounts of information.  Of that, we noticed 4 names that popped up again and again- men who intentionally lived the SOTM in their lives (for various reasons and in various ways): Jesus, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.  We also noted that each of these men where killed for their convictions.  Bonhoeffer onced said of the Sermon:

• “Having reached the end of the beatitudes, we naturally ask if there is any place of this earth for the community which they describe. Clearly, there is one place, and only one, and that is where the poorest, meekest, and most sorely tried of all men is to be found – on the cross at Golgotha. The fellowship of the beatitudes is the fellowship of the Crucified. With him it has lost all, and with him it has found all. From the cross there comes the call ‘blessed, blessed.’”

We recognized, then, that following the SOTM would inevitably call us to costly lives of sacrifice.

What does it mean to be “blessed”?  Of the two words in Greek that translate mostly commonly, the one used in the SOTM is “markarios” which denotes a pre-existing state or condition.  In other words, the blessing is not something that comes after or as a result of the condition, but is a blessing in the midst of said condition.  We are not rewarded with blessing because we are poor in spirit, but rather are blessed even in midst of suffering.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for their is the kingdom of heaven”

For as longs as there have been Biblical scholars, the difference between this verse and it’s parallel in Luke 6 (”Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”) have been debated.  Some will suggest that when the Jews of Jesus day heard Him say this, it would have immediately brought to mind such Scriptures as Isaiah 66:2, referring to a “poor and contrite” spirit.  Others, however, will note that in Luke 6, the blessed of verse 20 finds its parallel woe in verse 24, which says: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort”, clearly indicating that Jesus was, at least in part, referring to material poorness as well.

This difference could have filled our entire evening, as it sparked many strong opinions from various perspectives.  What we could agree on was that to be poor in spirit, like simplicity, is an internal transformation of the heart that, by necessity, must find expression in our external behaviour and choices, specifically in our relationship to wealth (and thus, sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, etc.).  Still, it is a point we will need to explore more.

What, then, is the kingdom of heaven?  While our time was far too limited to get into this point in depth, we all agreed that this was not about the promise of eternal life in heaven (at least not primarily), but rather about the establishment of God’s shalom- peace, justice, compassion, etc.- in the midst of our broken world.  Against the “wisdom” of the world, God’s kingdom here and now is found, less in the bold victories of unwavering confidence, but out of our embrace of our own brokenness and humility.

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted”

We all suffer pain and loss.  As a community, Little Flowers has faced a great deal of both.  This Beatitude at first can seem simple, even sentimental, but in the face of real suffering and loss, it is profound.  When our friend & brother Andrew took his life this year (due to untreated mental illness) shortly after becoming a Christian, we were all bombarded with questions and uncertainties, both from our own hearts and from others around us.  In the end, this Scripture gave us permission to truly mourn, avoiding the empty and desperate attempts to “put a good face on it”.  It also promised God’s primary posture to us in our suffering- the Comforter.

While God can (and has) certainly brought loss as a means of correction or consequence, we too often look at such times as though we are somehow to blame.  This dangerous prosperity mentality is deadly.  We should not face suffering with undeserved guilt or let it fester into bitterness.  Rather, we must mourn.  Jesus preached these words to a people all too familiar with suffering.  So we must navigate between the extremes of foolishly ignoring the consequences of our choices that leads to suffering and the lie that all suffering is judgment for sin or lack of faith.

Just as Jesus said that the poor would always be with us, so too will we be daily sharing life with others who are suffering as we follow that missional path that He has called us to.  Therefore, we must responsibly, respectfully and realistically face suffering and loss- our own and that of others- without easy answers.  To mourn is not to deny Christ’s ultimate victory, but to acknowledge the legitimacy of our current suffering.  To that end, we also committed again as a community to stand with each other and our wider community in the face of suffering and loss.

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”

The first thing we learned about this verse was how misleading the translation of the word “earth” is.  The word would better be translated as  the “land”.  To the Jews of Jesus day, this would immediately have been connected to the Promise Land, which was currently occupied by their Roman conquerors.  So, as they waited for the Messiah to rise up and wipe out their enemies, Jesus’ admonition that the Promise Land would be had through meekness would have been shocking at best.  While the people were often thinking only of the immediate political reality, Jesus saw that the Promised Land represented much more, including the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (see Genesis 12-17).

The pattern of the Beatitudes is becoming clearer with each verse.  The Kingdom will not belong to the proud (and many Jews were quite proud to be the chosen people of God), but rather to the humble.  In the face of suffering and loss, God does not promise vengeance and victory, but rather comfort in the midst of our pain.  And finally, the Promised Land will not be liberated through military might, but rather, even then in the midst of occupation, is inherited by the meek.  Meekness is not weakness, but rather a confident humility (which is not a contradiction), a trusting obedience and a steadfast faith in God in spite of what the circumstances suggest.

As we considered these few Beatitudes, we realized that to embrace them goes against our nature.  It is demanding, difficult and dangerous.  It requires patience, trust and above all, grace.  We prayed together that we would hold fast to these commitments, not letting the abstract ideals distract us from walking them out in every day life together.

Previous Post – Weekend Linkage #8

With the summer behind us, Little Flowers Community has decided to spend the next few months exploring The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).  As a Mennonite missional community that follows a Franciscan way, an emphasis on this Sermon is fitting, as Anabaptist and Franciscan traditions both attempted to live life around this set of teachings.  We are all excited to see where it leads us as a community.  Before we started into the Sermon itself, however, I decided it might be a good idea for us to explore what preceded it for Jesus.  And so, together we dived into Matthew 4.  Here are a few of our thoughts on it.

• The chapter opens with Jesus facing temptation (which we explored in detail in another sermon).  We reflected that Jesus faced His temptation alone in the wilderness.  Sometimes we can view resisting temptation as a social pressure or public witness.  That is, we resist because we fear consequence from our peers and/or to maintain credibility of witness to a watching world.  While these two aspects have their place, Jesus’ solitude in the face of His temptation teaches us that the temptations of in our hearts and in our private moments are most critical.
• Soon after his temptation, Jesus goes out and, in the midst of his preaching of repentance, He calls His disciples to Him.  Here we see that being a community of faith is no small part of the work of the Gospel.  It is not incidental or a casual analogy that we are called the Body of Christ.  As we die to the sins of our individual hearts, we are resurrected together as one, as His Body.  To truly be an authentic community of Christ, we must be intentionally and consistently committed to submission- both to the Holy Spirit and to one another- not because we must, but because we love God and each other.
• Jesus then continues on with His disciples and begins to proclaim the Gospel in word and deed, moving powerfully and miraculously in the Spirit.  Through the authority of our righteous & humble lives, out of the context of a mutually submitted community, ministry is born. Each factor contributed to leading Jesus to preaching this significantly important Sermon, calling His people to a specific way of life together.

So, it is on this foundation that we are getting ready to dive into the Beatitudes this week.  I am really excited about this series and feel as though the above ideas have really prepared us to move into it.

What do you think?

Previous Post – St. Francis de la Sissies

This morning, while visiting the blog of Joe Gerstandt (@jerstandt), I came across a video that showed a re-creation of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority.  The video (broken into 3 parts) are worth taking the time to watch and will explain themselves.  After watching them, scroll down for some further thoughts:

While watching these events unfold, I could not help but feel a degree of anger and judgment in respect to the “teachers” who inflicted the pain.  I could argue that, in my commitment to non-violence, I would have not participated in the experiment at all.  Though this is true, it fails to see the underlying lesson this experiment teaches us: Each of us is significantly prone to allow external factors or persons justify actions that cause harm to others.

It is easier for us to look at such an explicit example and say that we are above such actions.  However, the reality is that most of us participate in this scenario every day.  How often do we participate in systems- be they economic, governmental, ecclesial, etc.- that ultimately produce benefits for us that cost others dearly?  By stating that we are participating in systems set up and governed by other authorities, we can rationalize away our own culpability by either blindly “trusting” those in authority or helplessly claiming that “We live in the world and the world is thus”.

Further, we do not have to look to far outside ourselves to justify our actions and inaction.  Our passionate ideologies and strong convictions give us a moral high ground to stand on, even though few of us actually live up to the standards we so nobly espouse.  We may take occasional action, but too often it is token, like those who imitate the protests and marches seen in clips of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi, as though their authority stemmed from a public speech or protest march, not long lives of brutal sacrifice and uncertainty.

The fact the a small percentage of the group refused to continue is not anomalous.  This stands as true in our lives and churches as it does in this experiment.  And beyond the refusal to do harm, how many of us actively pursue the alternative, living radically different lives- doing justice and loving mercy in our humble pursuit of Christ-likeness?  I know I am too often guilty of taking the easy out.

Being like Christ is the path of most resistance. It is the lifestyle requires more of us than any other.  It requires us to consistently examine ourselves and our world.  It requires the sacrifice of the good in order to embrace the best.  It requires a daily discipline of putting God and others first, even to the point of loving those who hate and hurt us.  In short, it requires the Cross.

God, have mercy on me a sinner…

Previous Post – Weekend Linkage #6

Several years ago I wrote a blog post on venting and confession.  In the comment section, I friend mentioned the image I used (seen above) was from the Alfred Hitchcock film “I Confess”.  She recommended I see it, which I intended to do, but completely forgot.  Until last week (and I enjoyed it very much).  Watching the film, then rereading the old post, I began think again about confession, deciding to preach on it this past Sunday at Little Flowers Community.

Being in leadership, I have had many situations in which people came to be in order to “vent”.  That is, they were anger, hurt and upset with someone (and/or a circumstance) and wanted to release those feelings by sharing them.  More often than not it is an unpleasant session of hearing anger turn to bitterness, often developing into threats- ultimately empty expressions of emotion, but still disconcerting.  Having listened to many such venting sessions, I realized how often I subjected others to it and have done my best to avoid doing so.  Several years ago I started to suggest to the venters that, perhaps, this wasn’t a healthy way to process.  Almost inevitably I would be told:

“I am just being honest with how I am feeling!  Can’t I be real with you?  Would you prefer I just ignore things and pretend my feelings aren’t there?”

To which I would have little to say, so let them spew on.

While I still believe that this way of processing is generally unhealthy for all involved, there was a fair question in their response: How could they be real about how they feel without venting?  Around the time I was considering this, I was reading a lot on two different fronts (in typical INTJ fashion)- psychology and confession.  The former was teaching me about how repeated patterns of behaviour, especially related to strong emotions, can actually create neurological patterns of dependency in people.  People could literally become dependent on venting, rage, etc.  Increasingly venting is being seen as something that, practiced habitually, can be unhealthy.

It was then that I began to recognize the difference between telling the facts accurately and speaking the truth.  Jesus teaches us that He is the Truth- not that He merely has it or knows it, but embodies it.  Since Jesus is the incarnation of the God of love and grace, we realize that Truth is therefore also always loving and gracious (even if difficult).  Where speaking the facts about something might be accurate, if it does not ultimately lead to life, is it ultimately Truth?  Venting generally brings anything but life to the speaker, listener or the object of the anger.  So how can we be honest with where we are at while remaining truthful in how we do so?

This leads to the second area of interest- confession.  Reading from several Catholic perspectives (such as Dorothy Day, Henri Nouwen, Jean Vanier, Peter Maurin, Thomas Merton, etc.), the idea of confession began to break past the shallow Hollywood version that most Evangelicals are raised with.  Confession has a rich tradition and a multiplicity of expression.  For the purposes of this blog I am looking at confession in three basic ways:

• Confession is to acknowledge one’s belief or faith in something (Romans 10:9)
• Confession is to acknowledge one’s own moral failings/sin (James 5:15-16)
• Confession is to own or admit something as being true (Ephesians 4:14-16)

It is the third understanding that offers us a great deal of practical help as we face anger and venting.  Owning something as true means taking responsibility for oneself in any situation.  While this does not deny that we can be wronged by others and that things need to be corrected, it recognizes that in our anger we are first and foremost (and most often exclusively) responsible for our own hearts.  Here is a simple example of the difference:

• Venting: “John is such a jerk!  He doesn’t care about anyone but himself.  He never listens to anything.  I could just slap him when he does that!”
• Confessing: “I was really hurt by what John said and did.  I feel like he doesn’t care about what I have to say.  It makes me very angry when he does that.”

Now, I acknowledge this is something of an oversimplification, but the difference is critical.  The speaker can only definitively express what they are feeling.  They avoid the extreme language of “never” and “always”.  They resist living out in their heart the retaliation they know to be wrong.  This shift does not deny that John may have made mistakes, but returns the speakers emphasis onto themselves, the only person they ultimately are responsible to correct.  Anyone who is in a healthy marriage will tell you that culpability in an argument cannot be broken into percentages.  Even if the other person initiated, heightened, etc. the fight, if you have done anything wrong, that is your 100%.  You are just as responsible for that as the other person is for their 100%.  This is an act of discipline- one that does not deny the fault of others, but relinquishes the right to be right and focus on our own heart & actions.

Hebrews 12:14-15 tells us: “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.” The imagery around the phrase “bitter root” is vivid- something small beneath the surface that grows over time, digging deeper and deeper, harder to remove as time goes by and that eventually produces fruit in it’s own nature.  While we need to work at reconciliation, many times when we are treated wrongfully, the other person(s) will not acknowledge it.  Most of us will be the victim of major wounding and/or injustice that will never be made right in respect to the offender.  This even further illustrates why we must own and admit our own failings, release grace and forgiveness to others rather than entertaining and spewing the anger we feel inside.

To whom do we confess?  First and foremost, God.  God is the only one who can hear our venting without being tainted by it.  However, because of how it can harm us, it is still not advisable.  We need to bring things to God first and foremost.  We should also bring them to one another as fellow Christians.  This can be tricky, as it often quickly becomes gossip.  It is therefore wisest to only share such confession with a trusted, mature Christian friend who has enough distance from the situation.  “Confessing” to a dozen friend is hardly what is going to be helpful for anyone.  That is why a pastor, mentor, spiritual director, confessor, etc.- essentially someone you see as a spiritual authority in your life is a good options.  Do you lack that?  Then you have something to work on!

This kind of confession does not change the person(s) or circumstances you are angry with, but invites the Spirit to do the transformation in your heart.  When you are changed, then the situation is changed with it.  While it won’t always be easier, it will continue form you in the image of Christ.