Consultation on the Life of the Church
The MCEC community of congregations is meeting together on Saturday, October 31, 2009 at Steinmann Mennonite Church. Jack Suderman and Sue Steiner will lead us through our day as together we listen to God, listen for God and listen with God.
Come and join us!
Empowered by PeaceWorks
Themes emerging from final discernment session
Jeff Steckley and I worked with the excellent material that came from the table groups. We were looking for key words and ideas to jump out as we reviewed the material. The following 5 themes emerged which we believed reflected what we were reading.
Discernment Process III Summary of Work
Themes
Working with these themes they might be brought together in a sentence like the following...
The Church is worth it and its vocation is to be a discerning community that is not afraid but bold as we expect God's best which may surprise but calls us to follow with faithful obedience.
I'm interested to know how this reads for you!
How do we discern together?
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
I enjoyed the day and the opportunity to hear about how others are discerning what God is calling their churches to at this point in their history. At the same time I'd like to have longer and deeper conversations than the time and format permits. I was reflecting that perhaps in a previous generation the discernment was done by the bishops which had certain weaknesses but lead to some level of consistency and the ability to move more quickly as a unified church. How do we now with a decentralized structure discern and work together? I wonder if there is value in dialog among leaders in the church and what form that could take. Relying strictly on pastors or conference to act as communication channels is probably unrealistic and limits the amount of information conveyed.
I'd be interested in what thoughts others have on this topic.
Leon Kehl
Floradale Mennonite
How do we discern together?
Thanks for your thoughts Leon...I have heard from several others that the day while meaningful may have benefited from more time for "longer and deeper conversations." I have felt that moving to table groups for dialogue was a meaningful first step to helpful engagement with others on the subject of the day. I am wondering if the next step is to train ourselves and pose more helpful questions that lead to focused and deeper conversation. That is to say, how do we move from dialogue to lifting solid thoughts and ideas for more debate. We experimented with this a little at the end of the day - I wonder how that felt to you and others.
Thanks for joining the conversation,
Al Rempel
Regional Minister
Sometimes the issue isn't longer dialogue
Al,
Sometimes more time wouldn't lead to a deeper conversation. If the topic isn't important to the person or perhaps others at the table then increasing the length of time or deeper questions won't help, because we don't have something meaningful to discuss. Also the questions are often directed at what the session leader wants to achieve, which may be different than what the participants want. By this I mean the flow of information and questions is primarily vertical in nature and not horizontal.
I think connecting the churches together in sessions like this is a great experience, at the same time I wonder in what other ways we can interconnect, that promote horizontal communication. This blog in my mind is an example of this and I wonder in what ways technology could by used to facilitate this.
Sometimes the issue isn't longer dialogue
Leon,
Fair...I agree that using other forums such as a blog gives more options for people to engage and share their thinking. This is one of those experiments as a way to lift continued thinking.
I thank you for using this space for helping us to consider the questions that are developing.
Al
Re-Framing, & Re-Naming Our Discussion(s)
I enjoyed the day and really enjoyed hearing from Jack. But as always, there are a couple of things we might consider enhancing when looking ahead.
Firstly, I find it difficult to see discernment can be named as the primary vocation of the Church. That's a principle I thought I heard stated. Is that correct? Clearly, for me at least, the primary vocation of the Church remains unchanged throughout history and it is the making of disciples (both old and new). Moreover, this is precisely the mission for which the Church has always existed and not a mission that the Church has existed to choose (or discern) for itself. And finally, it is the one unique contribution that the Church makes to the world. Of course, in our conference booklet, Jack gave 5 examples of issues that he believes that the Church must work to discern. And such is fine. But if true, such is precisely how the discussion should've been framed and how similar discussions should be re-framed and re-named in the future: Discernment around "X."
Secondly, there was a little too much abstraction to help some folks like me. I agree with another commentator that seminary-trained professional leaders much more easily engage such discussions. And I believe that presentations, such as Saturday's, will continue to lack cogency and coherence as long as they they lack clear theological grounding. To be sure, there were references made to scripture and history as resources in this regard. But not how these things can be worked out systematically. Which is, in fact, key. I believe it is because lack of a methodology that Jack had a hard time answering various questions. (Thus, an explanation of just how discernment [better, methodology] can the issue to discern according to David Martin's statements made on Saturday). Indeed, if a solid methodology existed, those same questions would've actually been been wonderful opportunities to model its application.
As an example, our Methodist brothers and sisters often speak of 1) Scripture, 2) Reason, 3) Tradition, and 4) Experience (the so-called Wesleyan Quadilateral) as their framework for discernment. (Really just the addition of Experience to the Anglican Trilateral). And if such a framework had been ours', Jack could've easily responded to the questions by modeling how it functions. Primarily, by showing how appropriate attention is given to each of the 4 facets.
For example, let's take non-violent resistance as an issue to discern (one of the 5 proposed by Jack and definitely on the Church's radar). Scripture points to its teaching, especially clear in the teaching ministry of Jesus. Secondly, tradition, and not only Anabaptist tradition, but the earliest Christian teaching, supports the non-violent interpretation of scripture (not to mention the idea of discipleship modeled on the life of Jesus as a rule). Thirdly, through reason, via both scientific and historical research, we know that non-violence could've provided much more desirable results than violence (even redemption). At least, in the vast majority of cases. Finally, current experience of God's workings, via several faith communities around the world, continues to validate the claims of scripture, tradition, and such reasoning around the issue of non-violence.
Of course, I did not go through the 4 facets of the Quadilateral in either adequate detail or sufficient depth. Nonetheless, the relevance of having a well thought out and theologically grounded methodology, is hopefully clear. Further, it should provide a means of adapting God's wisdom wherever it is present in the world (i.e., St. Augustine maxim: "All truth is God's truth") via categories related to reason and experience. Thus, answering a second challenge raised during Saturday's meeting.
Respectfully, Jonathan Emerson-Pierce
Our mission or God's mission?
What I understood from some of the input and discussion is that we need to be more open to God's Spirit as we discern as a church. I know that some of this may seem "loose" or not as clear as we may like but "methodologies" may constrain our discernment and God's Spirit in ways that are not helpful. At St. Jacobs we've done two specific visioning processes in the past 10 years. The first followed a fairly clear methodology and it did yield some good results. The second process included a listening and discernment component. This led to not only deeper involvement by members but also a better opportunity for God's Spirit to work among us. To echo David Martin's quote I think our first attempt was trying to define our church's mission while the second time we tried to join God's mission for our church. The main difference was our attitude and openness to God's leading, not a methodology change.
Brent Horst
St. Jacobs lay leader
Re-Framing and Re-naming
Jonathan,
Possibly you can help me a little - if I'm understanding correctly you are proposing that a clearer methodology like that of Methodists or Weslayan tradition would lead to a clearer and more definitive outcome for the church. (That outcome would be a clear sense of how to respond to a particular question.) Am I understanding your comment correctly?
If so, I wonder how this sits with others...I am under the impression that the various interpretations of scripture, tradition, "reason" and experience is exactly what folks find frustrating. Having a specific time to reflect on the task of discernment as oppose to discernment of X is what is needed to engage this particular felt need of sisters and brothers. I'm curious what your thinking would be on this Jonathan.
I also have been reading Sally Weaver Glick's book "In Tune with God" which at one points states that good discernment does happen but there is no magic wand or one technique or resource person that always leads to good results. But, it may well be that the Quadilateral paradigm as you outlined above is one of the helpful ways we can engage the subject and as such is an important contribution to this conversation for further learning.
Al Rempel
On components in the discerning process
Another set of discerning components I recall from seminary is the "3 legged stool" of Canon, commentary, and community. That is, canon being scripture, commentary: how the church over time has looked at it and then the current community's experience and wisdom.
I think it is important to have a guiding framework to do our discerning but as you said Al, there is no magic wand to make sure we get it right. Having a framework though can perhaps steer us away from falling into some pitfalls.
I enjoyed most of the day but found the last session on combining our thoughts together unhelpful.
It felt too forced to try and discern something in 5 minutes and then blend it with everyone else's.
Perhaps using the time to work together on a test exercisee of discerning a particular issue could have been more helpful.
On components in the discerning process
Sorry I forgot to add my name.
Jim Brown
On components in the discerning process
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your contribution to the conversation...Your feedback on the final exercise is interesting. I wonder how many others shared your experience. However, any exercise built into a tight timeframe will likely feel this way to a degree. Some others have mentioned that they found this exercise challenging and engaging. To date table discussion groups have developed a large data pool in the exercise attempted this day the hardwork of sifting that to a smaller more definable statement was given to the group. I was intrigued by the capacity of the table groups to work at this.
Al Rempel
One's approach assumes a theological anthropology.
I think a theological point to make is that one either assumes a) God's Spirit works most effectively in a vacuum or b) God's Spirit works best when a community is educated. It's hard not to see that the greatest movements and leaders in Church history (certainly the most enduring) have been among the best equipped. Often lay-centered movements have been powerful. But these lay movements were also characterized not only by their openness, even their prayerful openness to God's Spirit, but their saturation with scripture (often including tradition) as well. Though the Mennonite Church was once characterized like this (saturated with scripture), it is no longer. As an example, just read the writings of the earliest communities. Direct references to scripture and scriptural allusions pervade it all. Therefore, we can no longer assume to have the same quality of immediate discernment of our spiritual ancestors unless we undertake a renewed quality of diligence. Indeed, our movement was in no way characterized by a theology of "inner light" apart from direct engagement with scripture and the scholarship of the day. Additionally, there was the experience of conversion which was their experiential confirmation. Of course, we may be tempted to think of terms of merely faithful listening. But one of the main theological principles of scripture is that no one magically arises above their current understandings, culture, or history to receive God's truth. And logically, one of the best ways to help transcend those inhibitors to discerning purer truth is to become educated. To become educated about what the Church has already learned and what it is currently discerning in its wider and larger contexts. In short, pure discernment, pure light, is not possible. We will continually see as "through a glass darkly." Notwithstanding, we owe it to ourselves to do the best we possibly can. And that means being responsible stewards of all that God has already given and has always worked through: scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. And that is not even to mention that fact that we are complex social entities and thus need a holistic and socially-informed approach due to our very nature.