Previous Post – Another Kind Of Seminary

In the early years of being a Christian, it was not uncommon to hear the idea that all we need is the Bible.  If anyone of us wants to know God and understand His will, all we had to do was open up Scripture and study.  We were cautioned about commentaries- they might be helpful, but we should never substitute the blatant truth in Scripture for the opinions of others.  In its worst expressions, this led to anti-academic sentiment (and even anti-intellectualism).  The heart of this bias was genuine and well intentioned, but it was/is deeply misguided.  The truth is that we never come to the Bible alone.

Let’s say you open to the New Testament and read Matthew 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount.  The fact is, your are reading it in a translation.  Immediately you are not alone.  The work and minds behind that translation required endless hours of study, scholarship, debate and more.  It is, after all, only one of hundreds of translations available.  Even if you decided to learn the language of the original text(s), you’d still have to rely on that same scholarship.  Already the room is filled with countless others who are helping you read the text.

This says nothing about the fact that you are reading the text through the lens of your place in history, culture, language, gender, age, education, experience, etc.  Layer upon layer of bias, influence and context shapes how you read, what you understand as you read and how you respond to the implications of that understanding.  As if that weren’t enough, even the people who were listening to Jesus’ words in the moments He spoke them often understood and responded to them differently.  Even His closest friends and disciples got it wrong time and again.

This kind of thinking is met with great resistance by those who believe that the Bible is enough.  After all, they say, if you question our ability to trust Scripture, what can we trust?  I sympathize with their perspective.  There are those who have allow these facts to rob them of faith in some/any authority in Scripture.  However, I believe that the logic of those who claim “Bible alone” actually achieves the opposite end they desire- that is, it results in us losing the essential and precious truth found in Scripture.

We do not come to Scripture alone, but do so with the Holy Spirit who helps us discern God’s truth and will within.  We do so through our brokenness and thus get it wrong time and again, but with humility, chastened certainty and the grace of a forgiving God, we continue to pursue Him.  This isn’t a formula or “5-easy-steps”, but it is a path upon which we will discover more of God and His truth.

This same Holy Spirit is the Spirit who unites us as One Body in Christ.  Therefore, the Spirit quickens our understanding of Scripture as we seek to discern together as community.  And that communal discernment engages the diversity and multiplicity of gifts within that community without condescending against some strength or privileging others.  We are mutually interdependent on one another through the Spirit.  In many ways, this unity and interdependence should provide an impetus for a humble, yet passionate engagement of mission.  After all, each person who comes into the Body of Christ brings with them absolutely unique expressions of gifting, perspective, etc.  In fact, it is often in those who are most other that bring us the most essential understanding to become more like Christ together.

We never come to the Bible alone.  And I thank God for it every day.

Previous Post -Foundations In Community – Part 7

My friend Chris Lenshyn, who writes at his excellent new blog Anabaptistly, recently posted a thought-provoking piece called “Why I Might Not Go To Seminary”.  In addition to the great comments that followed, it sparked this great discussion on Facebook too.  Be sure to read the post, comments & Facebook exchanges, as it is well worth it.  Inspired by the conversation, I thought I would weigh in here with some more thoughts.

I come at this topic from a rather unusual perspective.  Anyone who knows me know that I am passionate learner, dedicated and disciplined in reading, studying, exploring and engaging topics ranging from theology to quantum mechanics (and how the two relate).  I’ve served as a missionary for nearly 20 years, the last 3 as a church planting pastor in our inner city neighbourhood.  I’ve been published in several places, most recently a book that explicitly exegetes the Sermon on the Mount.  Yet I also have no formal education beyond high school.  And at this stage, I have no plans to further my formal education.

The primary reason for not pursuing seminary thus far has been a sense of vocation.  I had a clear calling into ministry at 17 that ushered me into full-time missionary service that has not allowed the time or means to further my education.  While loans were/are an option, I have made a firm commitment to avoid such debt unless completely necessary (allowing me to live very simply for many years).  And after 10 years of life and service in our inner city neighbourhood, I am also unprepared to take such a significant step away from my context.  As you can see, the three concerns that Chris mentioned in his post have been significant for my experience too.

However, I am not opposed to seminary.  Nor am I anti-academia.  Rather, I am deeply concerned that the realities and challenges of being genuinely engaged as missional communities in our post-Christendom context are not significantly (or even adequately) informing the model(s) of seminary that are predominant today.  Of course, I am observing as an outsider, which limits my perspective.  However, the experience of many others has made these dynamics clear enough to raise some concern.

In the excellent paper, “Between the Seminary, the Sanctuary and the Streets: Reflections on Alternative Theological Education”, Ched Myers argues his conviction that, “the goal of theological education in the North American context today should be to equip everyday disciples to overcome their sense of disempowerment and denial in order to engage in the evangelical works of mercy and service, advocacy and resistance, community building and social reconstruction. As such, theological study represents a form of leadership development, but only secondarily. Its primary purpose should be populist, that is, to nurture widely a more critical and grounded Christian literacy in Word and world in order to build capacity for the community of faith in its mission and witness.”

Meyers argues that what is largely at issue can be seen through the three questions: How theology is studied; Where theology is studied; What theology is studied.  Failure to properly address these realities has result in a drift that contributed to the trends of increased privatization, necessity of incurring debt and an environment of competition (for students, faculty & institutions alike).  He goes on to cite some creative alternatives, which are very exciting.  However, he also points out that with such alternatives are often “too practical for the seminaries, too political for the churches and too evangelical for most activist organizations”.

It is towards these alternative that I am passionately hoping to engage, both with respect to my own formation and in providing access to those in my community who would not (or can not) engage in the more traditional approach.  It is a worth while article to spend some time with.

What is your experience with seminary?  Have you seen creative alternatives?  What would you like to see?

Here are the previous posts thus far:

Foundations in Community – Part 1

Foundations in Community – Part 2

Foundations in Community – Part 3

Foundations in Community – Part 4

Foundations in Community – Part 5

Foundations in Community – Part 6

The foundational convictions proposed thus far are as follows:

1. “Every member of this community is an important part of the whole that reflects Christ.  Our ability to live & thrive as Christ followers is dependent on one another.  Thus, we must VOLUNTARILY make the common good of the community our priority.  Only in this way can our individual well-being truly be protected.”

2. “For our community there can be only one ultimate authority- our loving God, whose will we discern together as a community by His Holy Spirit”

3. “The only requirement to be welcomed as a member of our church community is the desire and commitment to follow Jesus.”

4. “The primary place to the discern God’s will is in the context of the Christ-committed community.”

5. “Our response to the love and grace of God as a community is to live missionally- that is, to live & proclaim the mission of Jesus to others where they are at.”

6. “Our commitment to Christ, community and mission requires that we be aware of and cautious with any commitment,  recognition or resource that might divert us from our primary vocation”

7. “We trust in God to be the only necessary source of provision of ‘daily bread’, believing that what we have is all we need for living into our kingdom calling as a community”

8. “Every member is called to lead (and be led) with respect to their unique gifting, calling, maturity experience and character, where (all things being equal) no role is privileged above another.”

9. “We are committed as a community to a high degree of organizational simplicity, especially with respect to growth, activity and leadership.”

____________________________________________

In a Peanuts cartoon Lucy demanded that Linus change TV channels, threatening him with her fist if he didn’t.

“What makes you think you can walk right in here and take over?” asks Linus.

“These five fingers,” says Lucy. “Individually they’re nothing but when I curl them together like this into a single unit, they form a weapon that is terrible to behold.”

“Which channel do you want?” asks Linus. Turning away, he looks at his fingers and says:

“Why can’t you guys get organized like that?”

While not the kind of unity we want to achieve (or the means to achieve it), this humorously illustrates the truth that there is strength in unity.  Perhaps a better example comes from David Augsburger’s book “Dissident Discipleship: A Spirituality of Self-Surrender, Love of God and Love of Neighbour”:

“Long ago in a distant land, a prince dreamed of creating more than a geographical or political kingdom. He dreamed of establishing a community in which all persons were committed to each other in loyalty and equality, where every person sought the welfare of the neighbour even at a cost to the self. So the prince called a great meeting of all the heads of clans, all the wise and trusted people of the land, and dared to tell his dream. Each chieftain and his clan were invited to join in on the foundation of a new society.
As part of the community’s inauguration, each was requested to search his cellar for the best wine produced from his ancestral vines. These treasured bottles would be uncorked, poured into a great communal vat, and blended, as the true community it represented, into a common vintage.

“How can I mix my exquisite wine with that of my neighbours?” asked one of the winegrowers invited to the covenanting. “I would sacrifice the unique variety of grape, the special climate of the year, the sweetness of a late harvest, the indefinable magic of bouquet, and I would violate my art as a winemaker. Impossible! Give up my distinct variety? Lose my separate self? I will not be adulterated in such a common cup.”

So he corked a bottle of tap water, affixed his most beautiful label to the bottle, and at the time of ritual poured the water ceremoniously into the vat. When the covenanting was solemnized, all filled their glasses for the communal draft, the toast that would seal commitment to community. As the cups touched their lips, all knew the truth. It was not wine. It was water. No one had been willing to pay the cost of community.”

Here I would like to propose the 10th foundational conviction:

“We recognize that central to being community is unity, therefore we’re committed to peace and reconciliation, refusing to let personal and/or non-essential differences divide or scandalize.”

In other words, our commitment to Christ & His kingdom places unity (and thus peace & reconciliation) at the center of our lives & ministry.  Presupposed in this statement is that there is brokenness- personal, relational, spiritual.  It requires that we all begin with the humbled acknowledgment of our own sin, entering equally submitted to Christ’s work of peace and reconciliation among us and beyond to a watching world.

It is critical, of course, that we recognize that peace is far more than the absence of conflict or violence (just as goodness is so much more than the absence of evil).  Rather, we Jesus spoke of peace, he was referring to an all-encompassing state of health, harmony and justice that even extended to his enemies.  Images of the lion and lamb lying together powerfully capture the seemingly ridiculous, unnatural peace he is calling us to.  When Jesus spoke of peace, His listeners would have known he was referring to shalom.

Shalom is a Hebrew word that in this context means far more than the absence of violence or even an established truce between enemies.  Rather, central to its meaning is the concept of wholeness, one that includes the individual but extends also to broader society and even the world.  John Driver defines it in this way:

“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 per- sons 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.”

Shalom, then, works against the DIS-integrating power of sin.  It seeks to restore what is broken to its original intention.  This is the work of the Church- the vocation of the community of Christ living the kingdom into our broken and longing world (one neighbourhood at a time). Therefore, we know that our commitment to peace is not about the avoidance (or denial) of conflict, division or controversy, but rather our commitment and posture in the face of these dynamics.

A significant aspect of this commitment is to recognize that when we live our lives, identifying as Christians, our words and actions reflect back upon Christ, as well as our own faith communities.  So, while it is not wrong to personal opinions and make our own choices, we must hold that freedom in tension with our commitment to Christ & His Church.  As our first foundational commitment affirms, “we must VOLUNTARILY make the common good of the community our priority”.  It is voluntary because we have no desire (or right) to dictate the minutiae of peoples lives, but instead want to foster of community of mutual submission and grace.

Whether it is our political positions or the way socialize with friends, every choice we make impacts the unity of the community of Christ.  This is especially true for those who take positions of more visible leadership in the community of faith, as our choices more explicitly reflect on our community.  This is complex dynamic that requires discernment and grace, but also a significant commitment to consistency, humility and intentionality.

This naturally leads to our 11th proposed foundational conviction:

“Our aim is that our faithfulness to Jesus will point to Him, not to ourselves, that people would be drawn to Christ in and through us, not primarily to any individual or even our own community.”

While this sounds noble, how it is actually accomplished is far from simple.  Jesus said, “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” (Matt. 6:1)  Two things distinguish Jesus’ admonition:

First, He isn’t forbidding us from doing works of righteousness before others, at that would indeed be a contradiction of his earlier mandate (Matt. 5:14-16).  Rather he is warning us against doing such works for the purpose of being seen by others, forcing us to examine the intentions of our heart.

The second unique aspect of Jesus’ warning is that, while we are not to perform these works of justice for the benefit of on-lookers, we are not called hide our righteousness from those on-lookers. Rather, we are called to hide it from ourselves! How can we hide from ourselves our own actions? Of course, Jesus is not suggesting that we some how induce a form of regular and persistent amnesia, but instead is showing us that it is not even enough to keep our works of righteousness secret from others, for the true source of the temptation is in our own hearts. How do we overcome such temptations and hide our just deeds from ourselves?  As our previous proposed value suggests, the presupposition of our own brokenness should lead us to humble repentance. Only the pure in heart can hope to find such hiddenness. It is only when, formed into the community of the peace & reconciliation, through becoming the community of the crucified, that we are able to love God and our neighbor, free of selfish intentions.

Further, it is in the context of community (the kind of community we have been exploring in our engagement with the Sermon on the Mount and throughout this series) that our personal ambitions can be put to the cross.  Even our shared hopes and missional engagement will be free of the sense of ownership that so often plagues our churches, celebrating the life of Christ in others even when we are neither credited for nor beneficiaries of such change.  It is difficult, but genuinely beautiful if we dare to follow Christ on that path.

And so, with only one more to propose in the coming weeks, the foundational convictions proposed thus far are as follows:

1. “Every member of this community is an important part of the whole that reflects Christ.  Our ability to live & thrive as Christ followers is dependent on one another.  Thus, we must VOLUNTARILY make the common good of the community our priority.  Only in this way can our individual well-being truly be protected.”

2. “For our community there can be only one ultimate authority- our loving God, whose will we discern together as a community by His Holy Spirit”

3. “The only requirement to be welcomed as a member of our church community is the desire and commitment to follow Jesus.”

4. “The primary place to the discern God’s will is in the context of the Christ-committed community.”

5. “Our response to the love and grace of God as a community is to live missionally- that is, to live & proclaim the mission of Jesus to others where they are at.”

6. “Our commitment to Christ, community and mission requires that we be aware of and cautious with any commitment,  recognition or resource that might divert us from our primary vocation”

7. “We trust in God to be the only necessary source of provision of ‘daily bread’, believing that what we have is all we need for living into our kingdom calling as a community”

8. “Every member is called to lead (and be led) with respect to their unique gifting, calling, maturity experience and character, where (all things being equal) no role is privileged above another.”

9. “We are committed as a community to a high degree of organizational simplicity, especially with respect to growth, activity and leadership.”

10. “We recognize that central to being community is unity, therefore we’re committed to peace and reconciliation, refusing to let personal and/or non-essential differences divide or scandalize.”

11. “Our aim is that our faithfulness to Jesus will point to Him, not to ourselves, that people would be drawn to Christ in and through us, not primarily to any individual or even our own community.”

With the proliferation of digital image devices, massive numbers of pictures are being taken of everything imaginable- from the stunning beauty of a sunset to the mundane tragedy of over-done toast.  It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words- and I am a great appreciator of such images- yet I wonder if, at times, the ease with which we capture images has made us complacent in our imaginations.  Consider the following:

“I have arrived in the Rainy River country, Mother dear, and the air is full of the scent of clover and wild roses. It is a country full of God-given beauty. The Rainy River winds its way majestically through the ever- changing beauty of the scenery. One is compelled to expand one’s lungs with deep breaths of the stimulating, champagne-like air, while before one spreads a feast of weird beauty such as mind can never imagine or describe. For hours since my arrival here have I sat on the Rainy’s banks drinking in the splendour of its ever-changing currents, watching the trout jumping in their frolic.

“In a sense a day like this has been as a thousand years, then again it has passed like the twinkling of an eye. For once in my life I have been in a world where there has been neither time nor space, but Past, Present and Future have seemed lost in the Eternal Now.

“The hours have passed and the sun has sunk towards the western horizon. Then strange, beautiful colours have begun to appear. Slowly the scene has changed to amber, then to rose. The distant view has passed from blue to the most delicate mauve, with rosy lights and purple shadows. The nearer outline has risen dark against the clear sky, and in the winding river all colours that may be seen by the eye of man were reflected and blended into one perfect harmony.

“It was the call of my Spirit, the awakening of a higher consciousness, a definite realization and entrance into the Land of pure Romance! For that land has no borders, no boundaries, no limits. He who walks there walks in the Paradise of God, where there is neither time nor space, be it for a moment, an hour, or a lifetime.”

This is a short excerpt from the book “Ups and Downs in Canada” published in 1922 by my great-great-grandfather, Victor Ricci.  He is describing the place that became his home and the home of several generations of Ricci, myself included.  There is something breath-taking about his description, an emotive power that could never fully be captured in a painting or photograph.

And as accessible as imagining technology has become, our use of language has also been dealt something of a blow due to technologies like email or texting- neither of which is inherently a “bad” medium.  Rather, we’ve become lazy and unimaginative in our language.  I cannot help but wonder what cost it might exact from us as a result.

Take some time today to consider the words you are using and how you are using them.  What stories are you hearing or telling?  Exercise your imagination and embrace the power of words that allows us to see what cannot be seen by the eye alone.

(Related: The Discipline of Internet Penmanship)

Here are the previous posts thus far:

Foundations in Community – Part 1

Foundations in Community – Part 2

Foundations in Community – Part 3

Foundations in Community – Part 4

Foundations in Community – Part 5

The foundational convictions proposed thus far are as follows:

1. “Every member of this community is an important part of the whole that reflects Christ.  Our ability to live & thrive as Christ followers is dependent on one another.  Thus, we must VOLUNTARILY make the common good of the community our priority.  Only in this way can our individual well-being truly be protected.”

2. “For our community there can be only one ultimate authority- our loving God, whose will we discern together as a community by His Holy Spirit”

3. “The only requirement to be welcomed as a member of our church community is the desire and commitment to follow Jesus.”

4. “The primary place the discern God’s will is in the context of the Christ-committed community.”

5. “Our response to the love and grace of God as a community is to live missionally- that is, to live & proclaim the mission of Jesus to others where they are at.”

6. “Our commitment to Christ, community and mission requires that we be aware of and cautious with any commitment,  recognition or resource that might divert us from our primary vocation”

7. “We trust in God to be the only necessary source of provision of ‘daily bread’, believing that what we have is all we need for living into our kingdom calling as a community”

____________________________________________

I recently came across a story about two men that met at law school and become true friends and study partners throughout, with one of them receiving the highest honours upon graduating.  In his speech, the gentleman said that he could not take full credit for his achievement, citing his study partner as essential to his success.  They planned to go into practice together.

What set this pair apart was the fact that one was blind and the other had no arms.  Together, they compensated for the others limitations- the one reading the books and guiding them to and from class in a busy schedule, while the other carried the books, turned pages and kept notes.  Together, they not only passed, but topped their class.  Whether this story is true or not, I found it beautiful because through mutual service and support, these men were defined, not by their limitations, but by their strengths.  Coming together, those strengths were exponentially more robust.This is the kind of redemptive mutuality that we have long desired (and worked) for with Little Flowers Community.  And on many levels, we have seen it worked out in beautiful and humbling ways.  For the 8th foundation conviction, what I propose seeks to articulate that desire and be more intentional about it:

“Every member is called to lead (and be led) with respect to their unique gifting, calling, maturity experience and character, where (all things being equal) no role is privileged above another.”

In other words, the ultimate responsibility for our vocation/calling as a community is equally held by every committed member.  No role or position is inherently more important or authoritative than another.  However, this equal responsibility is tempered by the discerning and humble recognition that unique the gifting, calling, maturity, experience and/or character of an individual will impact when and how (and if) they exercise authority in a given circumstance.

This is not to say that someone who is differently gifted, undeveloped in the gifting, unsure of their calling, less mature, inexperienced and/or with some character issues is completely disqualified from any input into the community, but rather that their input be carefully and prayerfully considered against those realities.  And even then, such discernment should be a communal one, not the privilege of a few (or one).  It requires time, patience, collaboration, trust and above all, grace.  However, it is also requires that people do not let their “limitations” becoming an excuse to cop out of their responsibility.  Such a mutual commitment requires that everyone step out and step up increasingly and consistently.  It also means that people cannot demand position for themselves or refuse position by shifting responsibility to another.

Perhaps the biggest question we hear when this idea of not privileging any role or position over another is the question of payment.  More specifically, does this mean we do not believe pastors or other church leaders should be paid?  While I am not paid for my pastoral service to our church (and have no plans to change that), we do not believe this is an absolute rule for us or for the wider church.  There are times when such role requires the time and freedom to necessitate such support.  Or in other areas where professional services are necessary (i.e. legal, mental health, financial, etc.), there are situations where it is entirely appropriate.

However, the hope is that such circumstances are only used when necessary.  And when they are deemed necessary that we be aware of and intentional in avoiding the inevitable trappings that such a privilege can produce (i.e. imbalance of responsibility placed on paid person; too much authority is demanded by and/or assumed in the paid position; etc.).  When such payment is deemed necessary, the community should be committed to regular reevaluation.  However, such payment and evaluation should not be used to control or manipulate the person in question.

This barely brushes the surface of this aspect of the value, but the overall point is that as we seek to foster of a community of mutual leadership and responsibility that we do so, not by making everyone the same, but by honouring the differences appropriately and recognizing that it is in the context of the community that we are to discern God’s will for us as His people.

This leads naturally to the 9th foundational conviction that I am proposing:

“We are committed as a community a high degree of organizational simplicity, especially with respect to growth, activity and leadership.”

This is not a rejection of organization, as we absolutely acknowledge its necessity.  Neither is this a reflection of the quite common (though all too often naive and shallow) anti-institutionalism that many Christians articulate today.  It is about the nature of organization (and even institutionalism) that we are concerned with here.  Neither are we denying the inevitable and necessary complexity that comes with being God’s people in our broken world.  Rather, it is about resisting any unnecessary complexity that takes away our freedom to be about the mission of God together.  And finally, neither are we confusing “simple” with “easy”.  Any community that has attempted to work by genuine consensus will know that it is a long and difficult process.

With respect to growth, for example, we recognize that maintain the level of intimacy and style of governance necessitates smaller groups.  Thus, we are considering a multiplication approach that will require us to function as smaller communities rather than an increasingly growing, singular community.

With respect to activities, we have chosen to intentionally keep formally organized church activities to a minimum.  We know the risk of letting such activities so fill our lives that we are given truly about Christ’s mission (or when we are, we expect “the lost” to come to our activities for the privilege of being evangelized).  We are not anti-activity, but only plan them when deem necessary or appropriate. This gives us freedom to be integrated into the fabric of our neighbourhoods, while recognizing that such freedom requires commitment and discipline.

With respect to leadership, we are intentional about not adding unnecessary levels of governance for the sake of efficiency.  For example, while it might help us avoid complications by having rules about every conceivable circumstance, not only would it become cumbersome, it would rob us of the necessity to be discerning and disciplined.

Again, these are just briefly looks at each of these dynamics, but the principle remains the same: a commitment to simplicity.  And at the heart of this and the previous conviction (and all the convictions) must always be humility.  We must resist the impulse towards ambition, not only individually, but also as a community.  The temptation to be the poster-church for missional innovation is all too common, which can lead us towards commitments and approaches and uses of power that undermine the vocation and convictions we are seeking to embody in the first place.

These foundational convictions, like the rest, are informed and shaped by the previous (and forthcoming) convictions.  Here is the list so far, with 3 more to come:

1. “Every member of this community is an important part of the whole that reflects Christ.  Our ability to live & thrive as Christ followers is dependent on one another.  Thus, we must VOLUNTARILY make the common good of the community our priority.  Only in this way can our individual well-being truly be protected.”

2. “For our community there can be only one ultimate authority- our loving God, whose will we discern together as a community by His Holy Spirit”

3. “The only requirement to be welcomed as a member of our church community is the desire and commitment to follow Jesus.”

4. “The primary place the discern God’s will is in the context of the Christ-committed community.”

5. “Our response to the love and grace of God as a community is to live missionally- that is, to live & proclaim the mission of Jesus to others where they are at.”

6. “Our commitment to Christ, community and mission requires that we be aware of and cautious with any commitment,  recognition or resource that might divert us from our primary vocation”

7. “We trust in God to be the only necessary source of provision of ‘daily bread’, believing that what we have is all we need for living into our kingdom calling as a community”

8. “Every member is called to lead (and be led) with respect to their unique gifting, calling, maturity experience and character, where (all things being equal) no role is privileged above another.”

9. “We are committed as a community a high degree of organizational simplicity, especially with respect to growth, activity and leadership.”

Previous Post – Discerning Together Always

UPDATE: I meant to mention that this post was inspired by Scot McKnight’s similar question found here.

This morning on Facebook, I asked people to share the top 3 books and top 3 films that have been most influential and why.  It was clear that it wasn’t simply books/films that they liked the most, but that had a marked influence on their lives.  The conversation has been great already (and continuing).  I shared my last, but decided to save my “Why?” answer for this context.

I should also qualify this post by saying that these may not actually be the top 3 books/films to influence me, but rather among the top.  I am sure I will think of a book or a movie later that should have ranked higher.  That being said, here were my answers:

Books:

“The Cost of Discipleship” (now just “Discipleship”) by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Since I first read this book in high school (and many rereads since), I have been challenged and humbled by the clear call to following Christ as God’s people at all costs.  It deeply shaped my spiritual journey (and as a result my life) helping to bring me to the place I am today.  It was also deeply influential in my own book “The Cost of Community”, which takes a similar, but more communal & Franciscan, look at the Sermon on the Mount.

“The Sparrow” by Mary Doria Russell

I am not huge fan of sci-fi (except in film & on television) and premise of this book sounded a little silly to me at first: After proof of intelligent life is discovered in our universe, the Jesuits, long establish fore-runner of first contact, launch the first mission to reach the alien planet.  And yet, it is one of the most powerful and moving books of faith, suffering and mission that I’ve ever read.  I can only pray that the film version will do it justice.

“Ockham’s Razor: A Search For Wonder In An Age Of Doubt” by Wade Rowland

This book, which is now harder to come by, surprised me by being a very compelling mix of history, travelogue, philosophy, memoir and theology.  It introduces readers to the engaging tale of how our western culture has so often divorces the spiritual from the natural, challenging long-held assumptions as to what (and who) bears responsibility for those dynamics.  You may not agree with all that he shares (I didn’t), but you’ll enjoy the journey and learn a great deal in the process.

Films:

“The Mission”

While I initially was drawn to this film for its focus on some historical challenges in Christian mission, I have since re-watched this film more than any other and each time a new layer of meaning and artistic beauty reveals itself.  It is not an easy film, nor one that has clear answers, despite initial interpretations.  It is rare for amazing acting, filmography, writer and theme come together (not to mention a stunning sound track), but they do so brilliantly in this film.  You’ll not only want to watch it if you haven’t, you’ll want to own it.

“Wit”

Based on the Pulitzer Prize winning play by the same name, this film was actually an HBO TV movie.  I came across it by accident one evening and watched it with my wife Kim (at the time my girlfriend).  It is one of the few film that has brought me to tears.  No, that isn’t accurate.  I wept with painfully deep sobbing (waking up a confused Kim, who wasn’t as taken by the film).  The story follows an English Literature professor as she faces treatment for a very aggressive form of cancer.  Fittingly, she is specializes in the work of John Donne, gives the story added depth and power.

“Billy Elliot”

Growing up in a rural community, where most boys were into hockey and hunting, I found myself drawn to reading, writing and nature.  That helped me especially resonate with this funny, yet at times heart-wrenching story of a young boy from a struggling industrial community who discovers his love for dance.  As I walked out of the theatre, along with Kim (again, my girlfriend at the time) and 2 other women we worked with, I burst into tears in the parking lot.  It spoke to me in a very personal way.

Honourable Mentions:

I should mention a few more.  John Grisham’s novels are usually an escapist choice of fiction.  However, several of his books changed my life forever.  “Street Lawyer” played a huge role in my ending up in urban ministry.  More recently, “The Confession” inspired me to start corresponding with two death row inmates.  One, my friend Matt Puckett, was executed by the state of Mississippi only a few weeks ago.  Needless to say, that changed me forever, as I continue to be involved in anti-death penalty advocacy.

In films, mention should be given to “Entertaining Angels: The Dorothy Day Story”.  While cheesy in its approach at times, it tells the compelling story of one of my heroes.  Before this film (which I found by “accident”) I had never heard of Day.  Today she is among the most influential writers & practitioners in my life & ministry.  Finally, “The Big Kahuna” (based on the award winning play “The Hospitality Suite”) is another important one.  I won’t go into detail except to say that watching it will let you listen to Danny Devito give one of the best teachings on evangelism you might ever here.  How’s that for a teaser?

At Little Flowers Community we slowly defining in greater detail what it means for us to be a missional community of Christ in our context.  Given our conviction that “the primary place the discern God’s will is in the context of the Christ-committed community”, we take a great deal of time to pray, study, discuss, explore and experiment around any issue that is significant to the community.  This might come through our exploration of Scripture, wrestling with the implications for our lives.  However, it is often the result of circumstances in the life of the community that lead us into this process.

Mennonite Church Canada has been going through a very similar process.  Over the last few years, they have identified several areas where certain dynamics have led to the need for conversation and consideration.  They list the following as central:

Human sexuality tends to be the topic on the forefront (both for the national church and for Little Flowers Community).  Mennonite Church Canada has responded by entering into a multi-year process called “Being A Faithful Church”.  Core to this process is the commitment to discern together God’s truth and will.  This is a constant task of the Church, one that will not end as long as sin remains.  In other words, we must always be asking the hard questions about what we believe and what the implications of such belief are.  They have identified three possible results from this process:

a) The church can repeat again what it has said before:

Example from the Bible: Jesus’ reference to part of the shema as the greatest commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength, and your neighbour as yourself.”

Example from church history: Mennonites reaffirming their understanding of pacifism in spite of the persecution against them from without, and the pressures from within in the 16th century and during World War I and II.

b) The church can modify what it has said before, given some new spiritual understandings. This would normally mean that it can move further but in the same direction that it has moved before.

Example from the Bible: Jesus’ desire to fulfill and not to abolish the law with his six references to: “You have heard that it was said … But I say to you…”

Example from church history: Mennonites slowly moving from an understanding of “non-resistance” to “non-violent resistance.”

c) The church can change what it has said before because new perspectives have become apparent and compelling, and shifting the relative authority of canonical voices has been discerned to be necessary.

Example from the Bible: The understanding of the “chosen people” to include the Gentiles in a new way, which in turn changed the understanding of circumcision and food laws in affirming what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

Example from church history: The church’s defense of slavery not being justifiable, and the equal role of women in the ministry of the church to be good.

This is not to say that arriving at any of these three ends makes the understanding right, only that such possible outcomes are possible and defensible.  In other words, we have to be open to any of the three ends as we faithfully and humbly seek God’s wisdom.

The process document goes on to clarify:

“There is always tension between sufficient wisdom and spiritual surprise as the church is intentional about discernment. Therefore, the church will not (cannot) know which of the three outcomes it will experience. Spiritual/biblical discernment ultimately is an exercise of faith in and submission to the work of the Holy Spirit in the midst of God’s community. The church always engages discernment on the foundation of what it has discerned before. Discernment does not mean that we are adrift or that there is no anchor. We are confident in the past presence of God with us, and the sufficiency of the wisdom that has been discerned. Discernment does not presuppose change, but it is open to surprises engineered by the Holy Spirit. This means that while the foundation is solid, where discernment will end up is not predetermined. It is open to the inherent tension of sufficiency and surprise. The church need not, however, fear. A discerning community will come to the point where it can say “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28). And this is the trust and faith that allows the church to be the church, engaging its God-given vocation of confronting sin and engaging obedience. Conversely, a church that avoids, refuses, or cannot engage its vocation of ongoing discernment cannot be the church.”

Consider the implications of that last sentence.  Faithfulness to Christ and to the mission He has called us into, requires ongoing discernment- not borne out of fearful uncertainty, but out of humility and obedience.  And above all, out of love, for failing to do so not only fails to love God, but fails to love others who live with (and often suffer from) the implications of our misguided, shallow or casual beliefs.  Now, I would temper that statement with the boundless grace of God that works in spite of our failings, but I understand the need for strong wording here.

This just barely brushes the surface of what is involved in the “Being A Faithful Church” process is doing.  Click on the link in the previous sentence to find more detailed resources.  Again, this is a process that parallels what we are doing at Little Flowers Community.  It is hard work, at times frustrating and confusing, but overall, deeply rewarding and exciting.

What does discernment look like in your community?

Previous Post -Localism & Being Missional

One day, a small group of Christians from a local church began to notice that there were more and more people living on the streets in their community.  They learned that due to the recession and reduced funding for several social programs had resulted in this change.  The need was so great, far beyond the means of their little community.  So they prayed to God for a miracle.

Soon there after they noticed that many of the new neighbours moving into the community were different.  They spoke languages they did not know, wore clothes that they’d only ever seen on National Geographic and the smells wafting from the kitchen were exotic and strange.  Many were very poor and clearly overwhelmed by their sudden arrival in this new country, culture and community.  The need was so complex, far beyond the understanding and capacity of their little church.  So they prayed to God for a miracle.

Driving home late one night, a member of the church counted six girls (and one boy) in a three block stretch who were clearly selling themselves sexually to the many strangers pulling up alongside them.  Some were quite young, maybe even as young as 14.  And he could have sworn that one of them was even pregnant.  The need was so overwhelming and terrifying, far beyond the ability and courage of their small community.  So they prayed to God for a miracle.

They began to notice that among those living on the streets of their city, many behaved strangely, erratically and irrationally.  They learned that funding for mental health services had been cut.  Even one of the larger in-patient hospitals for the mentally ill had been shut down, sending hundreds back onto the streets.  The need was significant and hard to understand, far beyond their capacity to reconcile with the simple faith of their small community.  So they prayed for a miracle.

One day, a middle aged woman from the neighbourhood arrived at the church, clearly distressed.  Her son had begun to run with the wrong crowd and had been arrested for drug possession and assault.  Overwhelmed and desperate, she pleaded with the church to come with her to the jail, to help talk some sense into her boy.  The need was not what they expected or prepared for, so they declined and promised to pray to God for a miracle.

In the midst of the brokenness and fear and despair that seemed to grow in the city, a few of those Christians- long since tired of waiting for a miracle- decided to do something.  They didn’t have the means.  They didn’t have all the training or understanding that seemed to be needed.  It was beyond their capacity and they were genuinely overwhelmed and scared at the prospect.  Their well-intentioned (though perhaps sometimes naive) faith had never considered the implications of what they were facing.  It wasn’t what they necessarily were gifted at doing or felt called to do.

Regardless, they stepped out and did what they could.  They shared what they had with those in need.  They helped welcome newcomers to the country and community.  They patiently came alongside those with mental illness and loved them as best they could.  They went with their neighbours to court, walked with them through the challenges they faced, both legal and emotional.  They were present in genuine and meaningful ways.

And God looked down upon his people and said:

“Now there’s a miracle!”

Previous Post – Foundations in Community – Part 5

“Church’s Mock Raid Leaves Teen Traumatized”

So reads the headline of a recent Washington Post article.  Here’s an excerpt:

MIDDLETOWN, Pa. — The men burst into the church classroom and ordered the 15 teens in the youth group to the floor.

They covered the teens’ heads with pillowcases and bound their hands. One man waved an unloaded gun, and another yelled, his face daubed with camouflage paint.

The kids gathered at the Glad Tidings Assembly of God Church and had planned to partake in youth ministry activities at 7 p.m. Wednesday (March 21).

Instead, they found themselves face down, hugging the linoleum floor, said the Rev. John Lanza, who described what happened. If they listened, they wouldn’t get hurt, their assailants said.

It sounds terrifying, but there’s a catch: The raid was fake, staged to show the teens the perils faced by Christian missionaries in the world’s trouble spots, Lanza said.

Yet it traumatized one 14-year-old girl so badly that her mother filed a report with the police, claiming her daughter suffered a busted lip and bruised knees.

_______________

This approach to help people (especially youth) better understand the realities of people in other context- such as missionaries or people in war torn countries, for example.  However, the programs I have seen that do this always insist that the participant be advised and prepared for what is happening.  While this reduces the immediate impact of the experience to a degree, it also helps avoid the kind of trauma mentioned above.

Putting aside this particular event (as I have no interest in roasting the leaders or the church, as I can only imagine the regret their well-intentioned, yet irresponsible approach has produced), I want to consider the idea itself- that is, creating an artificial experience to help people identify with others.  I should say up front that I am not totally opposed to using this method responsibly.  I developed a cultural immersion game that has been very effective in helping groups recognize their own blind spots and assumptions in the space where faith and culture intersect.

That said, I am concerned that the church is embracing the trend to engage with the other increasingly through artificial means.  While they have their place, we should be careful about making such approaches our primary means of engagement.  Rather, if we want to truly understand the other, then we must seek to know them, as real people, as neighbours.  In other words, the best way to know the other is to know the other.

One aspect that this approach will require is to rekindle the church’s commitment to localism.  In other words, those to whom we are most likely and able to relate to are those in our own cities and neighbourhoods.  Dorothy Day spoke this commitment with the Catholic Worker:

“Such would be the essential thrust of all Catholic Worker efforts: an intense, persisting localism, not as a step toward eventual national effort, but itself the ultimate effort. This localism included both spiritual and political work.”

Such localism should not be mistaken for insular parochialism.  While our primary (though not exclusive) emphasis is local, this does mean privileging local ideas, ideals and interests.  The somewhat cliché commitment to “think globally, act locally” still holds much wisdom.  The point is not to ignore or underplay the broader global context, but to engage it first and foremost through our local context.

Neither should this localism lead us to assume that where we are now is the local context we are meant to be in.  It is true that we are called to be missional where ever we are, but where we are must never be seen as incidental.  As important as place is in the narrative of God and His journey with us, so too is His very frequent calling on us to go to place.  In other words, we must genuinely consider and discern whether the context we are in is where God truly wants us.  When I consider the disproportionate distribution of Christians and resources in the world, I am completely convinced that many, many believers are not where they are called to be.

While this commitment to relationship with the other might sound idyllic to some, the reality is that such genuine presence also invites us into the deep and dangerous brokenness of others (which also exposes our own brokenness).  In many cases such localism will expose us to events and circumstances far more traumatic than what any exercise can produce.  We must be willing to pay the price of a presence that is all too often mitigated through distance or technology.

Again, I am not rejecting the value of such impersonal, artificial exercises.  However, when they become the primary way in which we seek to identify with others, I fear we are missing the pastoral and missional calling of the church to be relationally present with those around us.

This past Sunday, we explored two foundational convictions- one of which I posted on yesterday.  So on the the second one.  But first, here are the previous posts thus far:

Foundations in Community – Part 1

Foundations in Community – Part 2

Foundations in Community – Part 3

Foundations in Community – Part 4

The foundational convictions proposed thus far are as follows:

1. “Every member of this community is an important part of the whole that reflects Christ.  Our ability to live & thrive as Christ followers is dependent on one another.  Thus, we must VOLUNTARILY make the common good of the community our priority.  Only in this way can our individual well-being truly be protected.”

2. “For our community there can be only one ultimate authority- our loving God, whose will we discern together as a community by His Holy Spirit”

3. “The only requirement to be welcomed as a member of our church community is the desire and commitment to follow Jesus.”

4. “The primary place the discern God’s will is in the context of the Christ-committed community.”

5. “Our response to the love and grace of God as a community is to live missionally- that is, to live & proclaim the mission of Jesus to others where they are at.”

6. “Our commitment to Christ, community and mission requires that we be aware of and cautious with any commitment,  recognition or resource that might divert us from our primary vocation”

____________________________________________

In the previous post in the series, I shared the story of how St. Francis gave up all his possessions (to the point of nakedness) to trust in the provision of God.  Again, he said:

“Up until now, I have called this man, Peter Bernadone, my father. However, because I have chosen to serve God, I return to him all his money, as well as all the clothes he provided for me. From this day forward I will no longer call him father, but instead turn to God, my Father who is in heaven.”

This absolute trust and reliance upon God was deeply rooted in his conviction that the Lord’s Prayer was right- that God would provide for us our daily bread, one day at a time.  Reminiscent of the gift of manna, this daily provision was something Francis believed he could count on.

It is with this in mind, that I propose the next foundational conviction:

“We trust in God to be the only necessary source of provision of ‘daily bread’, believing that what we have is all we need for living into our kingdom calling as a community”

In other words, we believe that God will provide all that we need for what He calls us to do and be as His people.  While being wise with our resources is necessary, we are to weigh our obedience to God’s call against what we believe is possible.  Consider the miracles of the loaves and fishes, where the greater deficit produced the greater surplus in the end.  We need to be discerning and wise, but also faithful in the power and provision of our heavenly Father.

This does not mean we should refuse any outside help or even to make our needs known.  While God might call individuals and communities to such trusting silence at times, this should never be the rule.  Some of the most inspiring expressions of faithful Christian communities in Scripture and in church history clearly demonstrate an intimacy and interdependence where such needs could not be hidden in the first place.  However, this is not license to rush past patient trust.

We also affirm that the means of God’s provision includes the work of our hands.  In other words, as we work for our wages, grow our gardens and in other ways provide material support for our communities, these sources are also graces from God.  It is important to be cautious here, as this means is not the only way God provides.  Nor can the fruit of any and all work be seen as God’s provision (i.e. stolen goods, immoral/unethical work, etc.).  The point is to acknowledge that the Christian lawyer and the support-raising missionary are equally reliant upon God for their provision.

This conviction is a statement of faith in God’s provision, as well as a necessary expression of faithfulness with respect to the previous conviction.  After all, if we are to resist the temptation of compromising commitments, recognition or resources, we need to believe that God will provide accordingly.

As with each of the convictions, this one requires discernment as a community.  Further, it must be informed and shaped by the other convictions stated prior (and those yet to come).  However, in a culture of consumerism and materialism, the necessity of our humble and satisfied reliance on God’s provision is critical for our integrity and mission.

1. “Every member of this community is an important part of the whole that reflects Christ.  Our ability to live & thrive as Christ followers is dependent on one another.  Thus, we must VOLUNTARILY make the common good of the community our priority.  Only in this way can our individual well-being truly be protected.”

2. “For our community there can be only one ultimate authority- our loving God, whose will we discern together as a community by His Holy Spirit”

3. “The only requirement to be welcomed as a member of our church community is the desire and commitment to follow Jesus.”

4. “The primary place the discern God’s will is in the context of the Christ-committed community.”

5. “Our response to the love and grace of God as a community is to live missionally- that is, to live & proclaim the mission of Jesus to others where they are at.”

6. “Our commitment to Christ, community and mission requires that we be aware of and cautious with any commitment,  recognition or resource that might divert us from our primary vocation”

7. “We trust in God to be the only necessary source of provision of ‘daily bread’, believing that what we have is all we need for living into our kingdom calling as a community”