Our time in Slovakia is over today. We said goodbye last night to a good friend we have made here in Bratislava. I met him as a student and we’ve had many good times together over a drink, supper or during a lesson. He holds a significant position in the Slovak government and I’ve enjoyed his insights on his country. Judy and I travelled with he and his family one weekend. As I said in an earlier post, friends are hard to come by and I will miss him a lot. Judy meanwhile has also said goodbye to friends she has made. Such is the lot of a traveler. Our hope is that come the fall we can engage in ministry work somewhere, possibly in Kenya.

It has often happened that as Judy and I sit in a plaza in a new city, we will look at one another and agree that we are so blessed to have been able to travel as we have over the past couple of years. And since I won’t be able to write for a while I thought I would just mention some of our travels over the past couple of months.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have often traveled to Vienna in the past. It is just an incredibly beautiful city. And Austria is so well looked after, that it has been a favorite destination. About 6 weeks ago we went for a weekend to Salzburg, another beautiful and much smaller city. Think Mozart! Those of you who liked the Sound of Music may know that much of that film was shot in and around Salzburg. Try humming a few bars of “doe, a deer a female deer…” or “The hills are alive with the sound of…”. Fortunately, I was able to talk Judy out of both the Mozart concert and a Sound of Music Tour! But there is truly a sense of music in the air in this lovely place. We visited a fine contemporary art gallery (there are also many traditional galleries), toured the city’s castle (pictured above), lounged in their magnificent park (so nice on our spring weekend visit with the magnolias in bloom), and walked to many more sights. I’d like another couple days there - and to tell the truth I have a little regret about missing Mozart. Maybe we can go back some day.

Then three weeks ago, we again visited Austria taking a train along the Danube Valley to Tulln and Krems, just two of many small towns along the Danube west of Vienna. What a nice trip we had in these smaller quiet and inexpensive places, which still have many old and beautiful architecture (going back to about the 11th-12th century in some cases), Roman ruins, lots of public statuary and fountains, art galleries (both were home to famous Austrian artists). There is a paved bike path that runs along the Danube all the way into Germany. Is anyone game to travel it with us someday? It would be a great trip.

Finally, 2 weeks ago we took the train to Krakow, a nice small city in Poland. Since it escaped much of the allied bombing in WW2 it has many original historical buildings, a really nice large castle (called Wawel and free to us on Monday!). The food was inexpensive and they have great bakeries, neither of which was good for our diets! Most significant to us was the nearby town of Oswiecim, and the infamous Auschwitz and Birkenau. We felt we had to see these places of such horror and reflect on how inhuman it is possible for man to be. It is just impossible to understand how such a thing could have been allowed to happen, and I am moved nearly to tears just thinking about it again. A picture of 4 children, skin and bones really, standing together naked and utterly innocent; a partial roomful of human hair to be sent to make fabric; another partial roomful of prosthesis taken from victims. These things are etched on my mind, maybe for forever, which I think is the way it should be. With only a little imagination you could feel the ghosts of these poor souls walking the rooms and halls. Of the thousands of Jews previously living in Krakow some 250 are presently living there.
On a lighter note however, Krakow has great jazz scene. I love jazz, and so we attended two concerts by well-known Polish jazz musicians on successive night costing next to nothing! After the hell of Auschwitz this was almost heaven!

And it gets even better for us, as this weekend we travel to Italy for about 12 days – Venice, Orvieto as a base for daily trips into Rome and the surrounding country, then to Siena as a base for travel into Florence, Pisa and more of Tuscany. Great wine and great food! There goes the diet again! And it gets even better, as finally, we will then fly to South Africa for 2 weeks, to see our daughter, son-in-law and granddaughters, then home to Canada.

As I said at the start, we are so blessed.

MOVING ON (Last Part)

Achieving community is a far harder topic than I expected. I can’t even begin to understand or resolve the many issues that have come to mind. For example, two weeks ago in the small bible study I attend, the leader asked how the church can achieve the unity that is spoken of in Jn. 17. He and I argued that the only way to achieve it was to extend grace even when it was undeserved. We were not to judge but to love. This did not sit well with the traditionalist. He was mad. He felt that sinful behavior could not be ignored and must always be addressed (and honestly there is a lot of biblical support for his position). However, if he is right, then we must continue to denounce homosexuality, adultery, abortion and so many other behaviors (while selectively ignoring sin such as divorce). Can we have unity if our message is continually, “Thou shalt not…” Does this not perpetuate the problem of excluding and stigmatizing those with certain behavior, while encouraging those with hidden sin issues to continue to pretend they are fine. So how do you achieve unity and deal with sin? Or are unity and community separate issues. And is friendship a part of either?

As well, while I speak about the problems of BIG CHURCH, I know that big church is able to do things that small churches or house churches can’t. Is it possible to have both big and small church at once? Can big church change so as to meet the needs I have set out in my posts, and be there in a different form to provide those things that bigger institutions do well?

I have no quick answer to these questions, but I offer these suggestions generally on the issue of building community.

1. The church must not be afraid. As I indicated previously, fear leads to control. Control, then demands conformity. This leads to dishonesty. We pretend to be people we’re not, and we hide our sin, pain, doubt, etc. If people are to become close to one another our church gatherings must be an environment where people are encouraged to leave their false selves at home, let down their guards and let others see them with all their flaws. Attending church pretending to be that which we are not kills honesty, which leads to real relationships. Control has also led to a laity/clergy distinction, which has excluded real involvement of the congregation. Let’s take some risks and think about some new models and forms to provide for participation and honesty. *


2. If honest and frank discussion, which help to build relationships doesn’t take place in larger groups, or in church gatherings in a big church, then church, if it is to build community must think out of the box, to create opportunities for people to communicate with one another. The early church had all things in common. Churches shared with one another to achieve a sort of financial equality. I think that if big church must exist, at least it should consider creative ways to give people the chance to find as much common ground between them in both the secular and spiritual areas of their lives. This may result in closer relationships.

As an example, Judy and I have frequently attended a medium sized church in Johannesburg (say 300 people). They are very integrated and there is no sense of racial division. They meet in a modest church hall (formerly a barn) located on a large piece of land now surrounded by the city. Their people attend care groups through the week. They run a modest sized orphanage on the property, and have a child care worker and volunteers who go into the community providing family care, and offering training and oversight to smaller community childcare services. To promote fellowship they located a “piazza” in the centre of their assorted buildings, where they serve coffee, sweets, etc. on Sundays and at times during the week. They also have a small restaurant at the piazza, which provides both for the needs of the orphanage and sells inexpensive meals on at least Sundays after church and Wednesday evenings. There is a danger here. Church should not be an exclusive club, but although I have concerns about the traditional church form, at least they have tried something different, and they happen to be one of the friendliest churches we have ever attended.

3. Lengthy doctrinal requirements set out in Statements of Faith stifle community. They are exclusionary. They inhibit honesty. Real community demands space for questions, doubt and differences of opinion. Discussion promotes understanding, and ultimately growth. I think there must be agreement on essentials. This should, I think, lead to Statements of Faith of a few short paragraphs. Let’s get rid of barriers to community. I have belonged to a Baptist church for many years, which obviously believes in immersion. Good believing people are excluded from membership because they weren’t immersed. Now I am certain that the first believers were probably immersed. But you know what? I could care less about this as a requirement for membership. I may be wrong, but I doubt very much that Calvin, Augustine and C.S. Lewis (to guess at only a few) were immersed, yet my church would exclude them from membership.

4. Most importantly, I say it again: the church must be missional in nature, and not an organization that simply supports missionary work or has a missions program and supports some mission activity by some individuals. Every member and group, and the larger church as a whole is to be engaged in and supporting mission work. (see Friend of Missional, What is a Missional Community by Jason Zahariadies). I believe this is the joint work that will allow community to emerge as discussed by Rogier Bos. It is joint involvement in a work you care about, not a common belief that produces community.

This following quote about mission is so beautiful I just had to put it here. It was posted as a comment on Today at the Mission**.

Some want to live within the sound of church and chapel bell, I want to run a rescue shop within the yards of hell.

CT Studd

As you read it, think of the community which would be built in your group if you pursued a specific work together with a desire such as this; working with a common passion, giving your time and resources, encouraging and exhorting one another in the work, praying for its outcome, desiring, hurting, struggling, caring, and loving each other and your field of work. The world would notice community that did this. We would love our lives and our fellow workers.

Help us Jesus. We really want to live like this. We just can’t seem to do it.


* see an interesting post on church as potluck supper @ http://assembling.blogspot.com/2007/03/potluck-community.html
** This is a moving blog by a Vancouver Christian found at http://mission.squarespace.com/ Read it. His mission needs help at this time, and maybe you or your church could provide that help.

MOVING ON (Part 3)

I wanted to finish off this series of posts reflecting on the church, with some thoughts on community. Again, I just feel overwhelmed, and frankly, I would just give up, except the subject of community is just too important for me.

Until about 3 years ago, I attended the same Baptist church for some 20 years. I was active every Sunday greeting people – not a part of an assigned team, but meeting both new people and encouraging regular congregants because I wanted to, because I believed it was a precious opportunity that was integral to our call to love one another. As well, Judy and I tried to practice hospitality. We were involvd in most social events and ministering groups of all kinds. We wanted to do what we could to show love to others, and hoped for the same in return.

Now I am certain that I have many personality and character faults that stand in the way of friendship. During the latter years of my attendance I was probably a little intense about desiring spiritual change, (but then I foolishly thought that that was what a church desired in its people). Otherwise, I think I’m a fairly normal guy, able to make halfway decent conversation about a variety of subjects for at least brief periods of time, with no obvious tics or idiosyncracies, reasonable grooming (at least insofar as ensuring I had no off putting body odor or bad breath). I am fiercely loyal, reasonably generous, and pretty honest about my deficiencies.Before becoming a Christian I had a number of good friends, was sometimes (after enough to drink), the life of the party, and was well-liked by team members of which I was a part. I was a church leader, and I think respected for honesty and transparency.

Oddly however, during my time at church I never (until perhaps recently) made any close, long lasting friendships. I think I am not alone in this, particularly among men, although I also know some people (especially those with children) do enjoy good friendships. Yes, I had acquaintances whose company I enjoyed. We had coffee occasionally, and now and then would meet as couples. But I’m talking about people who knew all about me (and I of them), and with whom we could share our fears, dreams, concerns and the like.

So what is community? Did I have it and just not know it? Is (and was), my desire for something more than acquaintanceship, a result of my misunderstanding about what community is? Is my expectation unrealistic? As I indicated earlier, I’m still not sure. As I have been thinking about this part of the series I’ve watched other blogs seeking some insight to these questions. A couple of ideas caught my attention.

The first is that by our participation in a local church over the years we have community, although we may not recognize it at the time. In a very general sense a body experiences together the ups and downs of the economy, the fortunes of local sports teams, the inroads of culture, celebrations and loss, the curse of aging. All the while we struggle to live the life of selfless love and reflect Christ. Because we are imperfect, we never fully succeed as individuals; because we are imperfect as a church the body never really shines as it could. Still, persevering together is in its own way, community.

I don’t completely buy this. First, I think we are led to expect more:
Like when Jesus says (in Jn.13:34-5), “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you…By this will all men know that ou ae my disciples, if you have love one for another”.

And when Jesus prayed (at Jn. 17:21-3), “for those also who believe in me through (the disciples word); that they may all be one; even as thou Father art in me, and I in Thee…that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send me…”

Or when Paul wrote about, “a still more excellent way”, the great passage on love, which followed his lesson on the need for all members to honor the gifting and necessity of every member.

Secondly, my heart tells me this is not enough. Is community nothing more than the handshake at the door on the way into church, the small talk that takes place before and after a church service, working together and joking with one another during some project or event, or doing a bible study together? This concept of community is both too idealistic and too common. It claims a type of beauty to the kind of relationships and fractured living we now have in our present-day churches (a beauty that I just don’t think is there except by a long stretch of the imagination). And it accepts that its okay for this shallowness to continue, that our masks will remain in place except when anguish tears them away, that we will just share from the surface and not from our depths, that our fear of being honest about who we really are can continue. I think not.

And finally, I think those who look at the ‘bride” and its members understand the lack of depth in who we are, the inconsistency between our practice of community and the ideal, and it turns them off. This I think is completely contrary to what the world saw when it viewed the early church. I have no doubt that it was not Paul and the apostles alone who turned the world upside down. Rather it was the people they left behind in cities throughout their world, local bodies living in communities called church, who so impacted their immediate world that history was changed.

I recently read another interesting view about community written by Rogier Bos at http://the-next-wave-ezine.com, entitled That’s Not Community. He was talking to a post- modern acquaintance about the emerging church offering itself as a place of community to post moderns. His acquaintance (who he calls a friend) rejected the notion. Rogier writes about that:

My friend’s point is that we are making a mistake when we focus on community and
present community as something we are…we are putting the cart before the horse.
Community is not something we aim for; it is something that happens as a
byproduct. Says (my friend); I always felt that friendship, community and
personal development are the kinds of thing that never happen when you aim for
them to happen, like aiming for happiness. They are the byproducts of risk and
struggle… Community says my friend is what you have on the other side of crisis
when you have weathered the storms together. Before that all you have is a “nice
togetherness…You cannot organize community. You only get it by weathering the
storms together, by going through the fire, standing tall when all fall away,
coming to your friend’s defense when no one else will, and being the last one’s
left when the fight is over.

I think it is true that community is surely built this way. My best relationships have grown out of a situation somewhat like that described above. I was part of a wonderful caregroup, which during its existence was pretty concerned about its members, who enjoyed our time together, and built good relationships, although not necessarily a closeness akin to friendship. (However, I think, in retrospect, that this level of relationship is all that can be expected from such groups, because the group is not formed on the basis of interests in common, but rather diverse individuals form a group, whose commonality is often no more than that they attend the same church.)

On the other hand I don’t believe this view is entirely accurate. A church must offer both the hope and the conditions for community. It must aim for and expect that community will happen, and if it does, then attention to “setting the stage” to facilitate the process is vitally important.

The problem I think with church as it presently exists is that it has neither the form nor the interest in seeing community occur. It has the illusion, (to use a term recently employed by the EmergentVoyageur), that it is a place of community, when if my experience is typical, such is not the case, except if “community” is defined in the most shallow sense.

And so I will end at this point. In my next post I’ll offer some thoughts, as to what I think must change. This I think will kind of bring together a lot of my thoughts on what I would like the church to look like, and so I want to take some more time to write it. Until then, what do you think about the present state of community in the church? Is it satisfactory? Would you like to see more?

MOVING ON (Part 2)

Boy, what a rollercoaster! Maybe that’s what growing is about – excitement, discouragement, confusion? I have all of these emotions these days as I think about spiritual things. As I read other blogs I am always challenged by how little I know, by how sophisticated the discussion is elsewhere, and by my inadequacy to join the discussion.

I do want to start with some stories again, as examples of my concerns.

Judy and I returned from Kenya in June, 2004 after about 8 months, of teaching/serving at a Theological College through. As was usual in our church, we were invited to share some of our experiences at an evening church service. The evening service is generally the committed crowd of 75 or so of the 500+ morning attendees. That evening we shared generally about our time and work in Kenya, and in doing so offered 3 areas of need that people might want to be involved in. Our 17 year-old housegirl in Kenya, a happy committed Christian, with a Grade 8 education, would like to continue school, but had no funds for tuition. Perhaps someone would like to help; maybe an older person might consider having her come to Canada to help at their home, enjoy her companionship and allow her to attend our Christian school. We would help financially. Another friend of ours in Kenya carried on a Children’s Ministry (see his letter at an earlier post called, “I am Undone”) and could use some financial help. Finally, we told how the students at Scott College struggled for funds for tuition, often having sacrificed all they had to attend, surviving off the gifts of friends and family, living by faith. We told how heartbreaking it was to see them sent home when their tuition debt became too great. Perhaps some person or a care group might want to sponsor a student. This church has essentially no ministries other than traditional evangelism, and missionary support.* It has had a number of people who have volunteered with a mission in Kenya and so we thought might be expected to be interested in some direct involvement. Disappointingly, no person or group mentioned in even the slightest way, any interest in any of these opportunities

As I have mentioned before, we presently attend a small Baptist church of 20 or so in Slovakia. The church was started years ago by U.S. missionaries (the mission transmits radio and other programming in Europe), as a place for their families to attend. The same mission group continues to have a people in Bratislava and two of these traditional men along with one somewhat conservative Slovak make up the Board of this church. The church service is typically conservative. They sing hymns, and in a gesture to modernity also sing 20 year old choruses from a single chorus book. The church has no personal outreach or work in the community of any kind. Oddly enough, although Slovakia likely needs the gospel more than Africa, they decided to give some modest support to a Slovak missionary to Nigeria. If the church or any person were to engage in English teaching as a means of outreach they would have no problem attracting Slovak people. When I suggested an English teaching effort by the church people I was told they had no interest in such a thing. They want an English congregation and think they might attract a bigger crowd if they were to advertise appropriately. They felt left out when I began to use more contemporary songs in the service. They will not give up their outdated views of what a church is to be like.

Our church institutions are failing their people and their communities. They have produced a people that are institutionalized. They and the people associated with them lack individual vision, creativity and spontaneity. They seem unable to think and act to undertake a work except where it falls within some narrow understanding of what is traditionally done by the organization. The institutions do not see their role as training, mobilizing and encouraging independent mission activity and those who attend have almost no concept of a personal responsibility to engage in some kind of personal mission. Church-goers seem to be functionally dead in their seats. If a program is church sponsored they may give, but except where a program is provided church people don’t apparently comprehend acting alone.

There are many reasons for this, I think.

Our institutions reflect our culture. We are a consuming people whose main interest is in addressing our own needs. I read a posted article somewhere that suggested that if we wished to see who we serve, that we look at our spending habits. We serve ourselves, and this is particularly the case with our churches where our giving is mainly to provide for ourselves, our buildings, our pastors, our youth programs, our retreats, our special speakers, our school; the list goes on and on. Enough said.

Secondly, I believe the traditional evangelical church and its members have not made the effort to understand the post- modern world we live in, and perhaps are frightened of it. As a result they don’t understand how they can engage with it in some redemptive way. Rather its people withdraw to their buildings, where their paid representatives preach repetitive messages exhorting right conduct, reiterating the gospel message and encouraging right conduct in a broken world. There is safety there. But it has, after all this time for me, become terribly boring. And I wonder if this explains why most young people leave the church after high school. Once the excitement of young people’s programs has ended, there is nothing to stay for. The church and its people have in the end the right message, but no appropriate way to make it heard or seen in the real world where most people live, or to persuade this world that it is an answer for their lives.

And thirdly, because the institution has no ability or strategy to engage the non-believing world its only option is to exhort its people to confrontation evangelism, and preach at those who because of personal crisis or other reasons find themselves at church or some special church event.

So what do I think we should do?

1. The church must become aware of our immediate world, what it is about, how it thinks, and consider how it and its congregation can serve that world. I think this will be a tremendous challenge to leadership and members. They will have to throw off old ways of thinking, tradition and attitudes. Then they will have to persuade their congregation to change. In the traditional church, where we still fight about music style, it just doesn’t seem possible that this change could be made.

2. The evangelical church needs to abandon the idea the gospel must be explicitly proclaimed by every believer on every occasion in every context. I do not believe that we are all called to confrontational evangelism. We have believed that we all can be replicas of Paul, but I don't think that anymore. Paul had a personality and lived in a context where this approach was acceptable. He was also willing to suffer for the opportunity to preach (which we are not). This often earned him the right to be heard. The gospel is still the great need in people’s lives and it must remain at the heart of all that the church does. But it is agape love, lived out in front of our community that gives rise to the opportunity to share our faith, and not a kind of pretend love which expects, demands or takes advantage of every situation to speak the gospel. I believe that this single-minded focus on evangelism has affected people's ability to be and do all of what we as Christians are to do and be.

3. We need to get out of our fortresses. I personally think this means abandoning the idea of big church, or at least recreating it. We must “go”, rather than require people to come. If we retain the idea of big church it must take on a different role than it has at present. It must help individuals develop and deepen their faith, and then help them live out that faith as they participate with all people in their world. It might provide a model by being involved in a specific ongoing missional activity needed in its community or elsewhere, done out of love and with no other motivation. It will facilitate and encourage creative, loving, caring mission initiatives of all kinds by small groups and individuals.

This will require big church to somehow address the issue of its spending. This is a factor in its failure to be what it should be. As long as it is using the vast proportion of its resources to support itself and provide programs to attract people and satisfy the demands of those who attend it, it will have difficulty being a real model of Christ's body, and of supporting icreative mission work.

4. We need to rethink our support of overseas mission work done by individuals alien to the culture they are trying to affect, who are unknown to the local congregations who support them and with whom there are no ties. Let’s be honest. Most of us don’t really think often or deeply about people we don’t know. There are of course times when North Americans can impact a foreign country, teaching English as an evangelistic tool is one example, where tent makers are the only way to influence a culture, where pastoral training and materials are needed, etc. But in many cases (Kenya is an example) it is far more efficient to support nationals and their efforts. I am further convinced as well that the local church should first support and encourage individuals from the local body who step out in faith into some type of creative mission work, at home and abroad. This will encourage their friends and churchmates to do the same.

God has a missional heart says the tallskinnykiwi.* I have been reading Acts lately. It is not the Acts of the apostles, as is often said. It is the Holy Spirit on a mission, continuing the work of Jesus. Presently, the traditional church and many of its people are not in tune with Christ's heart. We are missing the opportunities presented in this present age. Chesterton, in his book "Orthodoxy", gave an illustration.He was speaking of something different, but I think his illustration is applicable to the church. He said that one could draw a giraffe, but if he did the giraffe must be drawn with a long neck. If, you drew it with a short neck, you may have created something, but you have not drawn a giraffe. I wonder about this thing we have created. Is it really a church other than in name alone? Can we change and be the evidence of God’s power to transform lives, impacting our communities the way I think God intended?





* see www. the-next-wave.org for this article (Missio Dei and Whatever)and a number of other good articles on the emerging and missional church