The ConneXion Covenanting Service

Community Events, Covenant, Ecclesiology, Scripture, Theology No Responses »
Mar 092012

On April 15th, 2012 the ConneXion community will gather together to speak its yearly commitment to each other. This commitment we call our “covenant”. But what does this word mean?


Covenant is first and foremost a theological word which means that it tells us something about God: who God is and what God does. In scripture, covenant refers to God’s resolute love and commitment to his people. In the Old Testament, God called Israel and made a covenant with them because he wished to shower his goodness on them and also to use them to be a blessing to the whole world. In later times, God called the church for the same reasons and made a new covenant with them through Jesus Christ. We, the church around the world today, are a part of that new covenant.

So, why should The ConneXion have a covenant if all Christians are already part of the New Covenant? Well, two things need to be said to that: First, The ConneXion covenant is NOT a different covenant from that of what all Christians belong to. Rather, The ConneXion chose to form a document called a “covenant” in order to make concrete, in our time and place, what the Gospel made universal in Jesus Christ. Put differently, we made a covenant as a way of asking, “what does it look like to be a part of the New Covenant in Arborg, Manitoba and how can we commit to that life?” Second, the motive behind having a covenant is to encourage intentionality within our community. Of course we should always be intentional in our commitments to each other and to God. However, having a service once a year to remind ourselves of our commitments is helpful for encouraging us to continue to think about and act towards ways of fulfilling that covenant with greater and greater faithfulness. This is our covenant:

I covenant to bless God and those around me through the use of my God-given gifts.

I covenant to live in fellowship by following the example of Jesus in serving the community and in eating together to build growing relationships.

I covenant to listen to the promptings of God in my life (through interaction with others, solitude, reading, prayer, etc.)

I covenant to keep learning what it means to be a Jesus follower in my world by reading God’s Word individually and in community.

I covenant to send and be sent to be the healing fragrance of Jesus as God enables me.

Posted by zac at 9:15 am

Birthing Christ in Others: A Post-Mother's Day Reflection

Mother's Day, Movies, Theology No Responses »
May 102011

For those of you would were at our Sunday service, you will (hopefully) remember that we discussed a strange claim that the bible makes, namely, that we are all called to be mother’s. We looked at Matthew 12:50 where Jesus says, “…whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother…” and we looked at Galatians 4:19 where Paul notes to the Galatians that he is “…again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you”. What radical claims this Gospel makes! Yes, biological mother’s stand as significant signs of God’s grace and creative love being poured out continually into creation. And yet, at the same time, this grace and creative love is totally beyond anything that biology can determine or limit. In fact, God’s grace and creative love reconfigure the world, not in terms of biological categories, but in terms of the expansive love of Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven. In Jesus and in the Kingdom, terms like “mother,” “brother,” and “sister” become linked to all who love the way that Jesus loves and we know that Jesus’ love is seen in his ability to birth possibility where it had not been there before.

A stunning modern day picture of this comes from the film Children of Men where, in the most powerful scene in the movie, the main character Theo leads the only mother left on the planet, with her newborn baby, through a throng of people at war. When the baby cries, all of the gunshots cease, all of the screaming subsides, and for once, people are mesmerized by the crying of a child. This is a beautiful picture of what it looks like for all of us to carry the Christ into the messiest and darkest situations the world throws at us. This is what it looks like for us to be in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed throughout the world. May we all be inspired, this mother’s day, to be Mother’s.

Posted by zac at 9:26 am

Refreshing Winds 2011 Audio

Canadian Mennonite University, Conferences, Theology No Responses »
Feb 152011

As I previously made you aware of, CMU hosted their worship conference Refreshing Winds from February 3rd-5th. I have recently discovered that the audio files from this conference are up on the web for downloading or listening. Check them out!

Posted by zac at 1:53 pm

The Church & Power: Further Reflections on Church-State Relations

Canadian Politics, Political Theology, Theology No Responses »
Jan 312011

Hello All,

This last Sunday Ward Parkinson led us in a reflection on how we are to, as Christians, relate to the state/government. It was a great discussion and one that is ongoing. Today, Ward emailed me and asked me to share this quote with you which he felt nicely fit with the theme of church and state from an Anabaptist perspective. Let me know your thoughts:

Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.

—Martin Luther King, Jr., “Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted by zac at 7:16 pm

Biblical Hermeneutics: Two Quotes from Karl Barth

Biblical Interpretation, Karl Barth, Theology, Thinking Critically No Responses »
Jan 242011

At The ConneXion we have been working through the EMC’s newly released lectionary. This last Sunday we explored the chapter on Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture with a Focus on Christ. During the teaching time, we explored three principles in biblical hermeneutics: i.) the bible is often its own best interpreter ii.) knowledge of the historical context in which a text was written, while not necessarily essential, is extremely helpful for fully grasping its significance iii.) reading scripture through the lens of Jesus’ life. To further explore these three points, I offer two quotes from theologian Karl Barth which I think draw out even more of the significance of these three principles in biblical hermeneutics:

“The statement that the Bible is God’s Word is a confession of faith, a statement of the faith which hears God Himself speak through the biblical word of man.” CD, Vol.I.1, p.110

“Why and in what respect does the biblical witness have authority? Because and in the fact that he claims no authority for himself, that his witness amounts to letting that other itself be its own authority. We thus do the Bible poor and unwelcome honour if we equate it directly with this other, with revelation itself.” CD, Vol.I,1, p.112

What Karl Barth so helpfully points out here is that the biblical authors are the most faithful and radical form of witnesses. What does a witness do? A witness “claims no authority for itself” but instead points to the “other” to whom it is witnessing. The bible is authoritative, therefore, not because we say it is. And here is the danger, isn’t it? When we enter into the task of hermeneutics, we can sometimes assume that the task is one where we seek to “grasp” or “understand” the text as if it were some kind of “idea”. While there is nothing wrong with putting the matter this way, it can be dangerous if we assume that we control the Word of God under a category. When we assume this type of control, we actually mistake Jesus for a concept that we have made up (“word of God”), which is really our own particular perspective on the word of God. In other words, the only way for the Bible to truly be authoritative is for us to always allow it to speak a new word to us. This requires that we believe in the bible as the Word of God only by faith, faith that the entirety of the bible is a witness to Jesus, faith that no matter what the context was in which God spoke to the biblical authors and faith that no matter what context it is that we find ourselves in, that we can in fact encounter the true Word of God, Jesus, in our listening to the written word. Thoughts?

Posted by zac at 2:20 pm

"Holding" a Statement of Faith

Ecclesiology, Evangelical Mennonite Conference, Theology No Responses »
Nov 052010

In a previous post, I had quoted Rowan Williams on the value of keeping the Church’s engagement with her scriptures and traditions a difficult affair. Once the scriptures become tamed by our ideologies or once our traditions just become repetitive practices that keep us comfortable and secured in our discipleship (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one), we lose the risky and uncomfortable demands that the Gospel makes on us. Keeping this in mind, I have been pondering what it might mean to “hold” to a Statement of Faith within a particular Church tradition. For if Williams is right (and I think he is), then “holding” to a statement of faith cannot mean accepting it without the tiresome and difficult work of engaging in its many statements, always questioning its meaning in order to better seek understanding. Indeed, for if “holding” means accepting uncritically or without actual engagement with those statements, then it cannot be faith, can it? As Karl Barth said: “The truth comes…in the faith in which we begin to know, and cease, and begin again.” (Church Dogmatics, Vol. I.1, p.14)

Now, The ConneXion is a church that has membership in the Evangelical Mennonite Conference. Some of you may have taken the time to read the EMC’s Statement of Faith, but probably many of us have not. In light of the above reflection, I encourage you to take a look at it, but also to take a look at a document that the EMC Board of Leadership and Outreach shaped with the help of EMC pastors and writers, for I think that this is precisely the kind of engagement with the statement of faith that we need to sustain. Take a look and let others know what you think.

Posted by zac at 7:37 am

Karl Barth on Christian Speech

Karl Barth, Theology No Responses »
Nov 042010

“Christian speech must be tested by its conformity to Christ. This conformity is never clear and unambiguous. To the finally and adequately given divine answer there corresponds a human question which can maintain its faithfulness only in unwearied and honest persistence. There corresponds even at the highest point of attainment the open: “Not as though I had already attained.” Church Dogmatics, Vol I, 1, pp.13-14.

Now if that isn’t inspiration for the Church to live a well examined life in relation to her speech about God, I don’t know what is!

Posted by zac at 5:05 pm

Whose Justice? Whose Testimony? A reflection.

Ecclesiology, Mission, Theology No Responses »
Oct 172010

In Isaiah 11:3-4a we are told that the shoot from the stump of Jesse “will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.” In other words, Isaiah knows that true justice cannot rely on judging what is often visible about ourselves, for what is often visible about ourselves is really a lie (we are pretentious and far too often inauthentic creatures), nor can this judgement be founded on what we say about ourselves as this is similarly deceptive. The shoot from Jesse will have a different way of judging and bringing justice to the earth that will not rely on these methods — he will see right through our pretentious selves and will speak to what is hidden.

Reading this passage in light of Jesus’ coming, we cannot but make a strong connection between the shoot of Jesse, the coming of the Messiah, and Jesus. John’s Gospel reveals a Messiah who, like the Isaiahic one, does not rely on the “wisdom” of the wise to reveal the truth about Himself and humankind. Why? What was it that Jesus perceived “in a man” that made him “not need” man’s testimony (John 2:23-25)? I suppose it is once again obvious — our fleeting allegiances, our rampant misunderstanding of God’s ways…Yet John’s words are stronger: “he did not need man’s testimony”. In other words, what Jesus did in his life, death, and resurrection is something that always exceeds our testimony regarding it! God’s justice will always exceed our capacity to rightly accomplish it even as we must seek after it fervently. Does this mean we shut up about Jesus? Perhaps sometimes (although “shut up” here would have to be qualified). However, regardless of our situation, we must testify to the Gospel with all of our being: of that there is no question. However, based on the above verses, I think it is only right to say that testifying must not be so much an act of description in which we command our own reputation or identity and command our own eloquence and convincing arguments, but is rather a consistent and dumbfounded spoken and enacted announcement that always defer’s to a greater testimony spoken and enacted by the living God through the Spirit. When we have lost the dumbfounded, awestruck posture of testimony that can discern the ongoing testimony of the Spirit and have instead become comfortable with this dangerous and untameable proclamation, we no longer announce the victory of Christ over this world but instead, with futility, attempt to re-establish the world’s footing on its “own” foundation (there is none!) rather than on the boundless and “foundationless” sea of God’s grace. We did not first choose God, no, God has first chosen us! AMEN

Posted by zac at 1:36 pm

Immanuel as Judge?

Advent, Christmas, Theology No Responses »
Oct 072010

As the Advent season quickly approaches, we begin to anticipate the arrival of Immanuel, God with Us. Yet is this something we should be comfortably anticipating? This may seem an odd question considering that advent and Christmas are considered to be one of the most “wonderful” times of the year. Yet, the arrival of Immanuel, as articulated within the entirety of scripture, is not an arrival which sets us at ease. In Isaiah, Immanuel is given as a sign to King Ahaz that God is where true security lies (Chp.7) and in this way we can see why Isaiah is often quoted at Christmas as it is in Jesus’ reign that we understand true peace to arrive. However, the Isaiah passage does not stop there. While Ahaz is admonished not to fear Assyria, but to trust in the true God who is “with us”, only one chapter later, when Isaiah prophesy’s what will happen to the people when they do not trust God, Immanuel is described as the God who is with us in mighty judgment (“as a flood”, 8:7-8).

It is tempting to think of this aspect of the Isaiah passage as not applicable to Jesus’ advent and perhaps even overshadowed by it. However, in light of the fact that Immanuel is described as both the source of security and judgment in Isaiah, I cannot help but wonder what it means, as we approach Advent and Christmas, to think of this little babe born in Bethlehem, God with us, as being fundamentally an affirmation of God’s redeeming presence among us — our salvation, while at the same time a judgment of the world. In his adult ministry, Jesus noted that he did not come to judge the world but to save it (John 12:47-48). However he also notes at the same time that there is still a judge and that judge is Jesus’ Father. Jesus’ life is the life of faithfulness that we are admonished to imitate and follow after — a life lived in radical trust in God, his Father. However, like unfaithful Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem, we fall away and buy into the false “salvations” of the world (2 Timothy 4:1). In such a world, we have to wonder whether or not Immanuel is as welcome as we think he should be and whether his arrival will make demands on our lives — demands we find difficult to swallow.

As we approach Advent and Christmas, may we with penitent hearts be ready to see how the little Lord Jesus may be both tender and terrifying.

Posted by zac at 2:07 pm

Who is "in charge" of the Mission of the Church

Colonialism, Mission, Theology 1 Response »
Oct 062010

Hey All,

So, what is the first image that you think the average non-Christian has come to mind when they hear the phrase “Christian Missionary Activity”? In many ways this is a loaded term and you probably have a lot of thoughts come to mind ranging from positive images of good people performing acts of generosity, to negative images of colonization which still stain the history of the church. It is likely though that the majority of images that the average non-Christian would have would likely tend to show the “Christian” in control and in charge of mission — in other words, the very stuff of ‘mission’ (how the Gospel should be preached, who the God is that we preach about, what people need to know, etc.) is rigidly decided and even pre-determined by those in the church ahead of time in terms of what strategy will be most effective in “winning” others to the faith. If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that while many missionaries do not fit the negative image described above, the church at large still operates to a great extent in this controlling fashion in mission (as a side, I would tend to think that long-term overseas missionaries would not fit this negative image as much because as anyone who has either done long term overseas missions or knows someone who has, knows that this style of mission will quickly prevent all opportunity for sharing the Gospel. My feeling is that the negative image applies moreso to the “mission field” within the affluent Western nations). However, what if mission could be conceived differently? Alain Epp Weaver’s States of Exile has a great passage which describes a far more radical conception of the church in mission:

“The church in diaspora [exile] is a church in mission. Jesus sends the church out into the world to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Exile is the site of mission, the name for the innumerable places to which the church is sent by her Lord. However, a peculiar thing happens as the church embarks on this exilic mission. As Christians in mission learn new languages, become immersed in new thought worlds, we discover that the Spirit of the God incarnate in Jesus has preceded us. While we thought we were going out to share information about Jesus with others, we gradually realize, as we seek to confess our faith in Jesus in ever-new situations, that we do not possess or control our proclamation of Jesus but that our prior expectations and certainties about Jesus’ identity are subverted. The church in exile is “not in charge” politically, but even more so, it is not in charge theologically: exile is thus not only the site of mission but also a style of mission.” p.67

What might the style of our “Christian” mission in our communities look like if we would understand mission in this sense? Thoughts?

Zac

Posted by zac at 4:00 pm
Older Entries
© 2013 The ConneXion Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha