Previous Post -Influential Books & Movies

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.”