Our Closing Reflection

EVI Logo-Web BG22906313_10155133298332615_2145312236_o

by Emerging Voices Initiative


Emerging Voices Initiative is writing its final post.

Almost two years ago, we became involved in Mennonite Church Canada as Emerging Voices Initiative (EVI). We gathered as people committed to the well-being of the church, seeking ways to engage more deeply in the Future Directions Task Force and transition process. We never would have guessed that our work would take us to the place we are today.

As Mennonite Church Canada delegates have affirmed a new church structure, we have decided to formally discontinue Emerging Voices Initiative. When we began, we focused on the Future Directions Task Force’s final report, asking questions about the changing structure, and providing a forum for others to do so. We tried to listen closely and respond faithfully.

With the new structure affirmed, our chosen task has reached a fitting end. Instead of continuing as a group, we want our story to encourage young people to be heard in their own church settings. We hope the church will create and maintain space for young voices without the container of Emerging Voices Initiative.

We always felt conversations about change and transition needed to begin by considering the church’s calling. In all the discussions we have been part of, we have tried to keep our vision for the church at the centre. We pray that as the church transitions, we remain faithful to how Christ is calling us to be, in both words and actions. We hope for energy, honesty and compassion as we experiment with a new structure.

We owe thanks to many, especially to Mennonite Church Canada itself. Staff have been supportive of our work and patient with our questions. Last fall, we received generous funding from MC Canada to make our cross-country workshop tour possible.

Everyone who supported us, in any way, became part of our project. Delegates, congregants, pastors, professors, and more have responded to us with curiosity and enthusiasm. To all who participated, whether by adding a leaf to our tree of hope and lament at Assembly 2016 in Saskatoon, sending us a blog post, or simply being present, thank you.

Though EVI has come to a close, we are not leaving the church. We are all still here. We want to wrestle with questions of faithfulness and feasibility. We are committed to the future of the church. As the church is changing, we affirm what we wrote at the beginning:

We acknowledge that the church ultimately belongs to God and is a sign of God’s Kingdom. God is always working within and beyond the institutional church. We recognize that the world’s redemption is in God’s hands, and our actions and structures should reflect our best attempts to participate in God’s work, not control it. (A Vision for the Church)

From all of us at Emerging Voices Initiative, we’re glad to be church with you.

A few favourite moments.


This is our final post–it’s hard to know what to write down here! Of course, your comments are welcome. Our website will remain active as an archive of our work. Our contact page will also stay up for some time. Send us your questions, comments and shout-outs.

Thanks for visiting, reading and being part of our journey!

Advertisements
Our Closing Reflection

A Global Perspective

22092778_10214463140962441_50445607_o

by Larissa Swartz


“You are the body of the Anointed, the Liberating King; each and every one of you is a vital member.” 1 Cor. 12:27 (The Voice)

As North American Christians, we are privileged. We often recognize this, but it’s easy to forget—once we start counting, we come to realize in just how many ways. Whether with regards to food, education, utilities, church buildings & programs, medicine, travel, or freedom to worship, most things are easily accessible to us, even if on credit. We don’t need to rely on anyone else, let alone God, for anything if we don’t want to. We value our independence and freedom highly, taking it for granted and often not realizing what we’re missing because of it until we personally encounter another worldview.

As I have regularly interacted with international students, primarily from collectivist cultures, my worldview as a Christian has changed as my Western values have been challenged. If I could learn so much from non-Christians, how much more could I learn from my international brothers and sisters in Christ? This is what drew me into the community of Mennonite World Conference.

After Mennonite World Conference’s Renewal 2027 event in Augsburg, Germany this past February, I reflected on the value of the global church:

How is something or someone renewed? Romans 12:2 (NIV) keeps coming to mind: “Do not be conformed to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – His good, pleasing, and perfect will.” How, then, do we renew our minds? We do this by dwelling on truth, found in the living and active Word of God.

Unfortunately, humanity is sick with a disease known as pride, which can lead us into legalism and self-righteousness and ethnocentrism, even when reading and studying God’s Word. I find it interesting that this verse comes right before the passage talking about the body of Christ. Our Father, in His mercy, has provided us with a cure to our pride: community – a global and local family made up of people from different cultures, backgrounds, ethnicities, languages and genders.

Individually beautiful and unique people who think differently than we do. People that bring a different understanding of Scripture. People that have different experiences and stories. People to remind us and show us that none of us has everything figured out.

In order to be continually renewed and transformed, we have to be continually brought low and humbled, in order to receive instruction. In our humility, we allow Jesus to challenge our perspective and understanding of God over and over again so that the Spirit can renew us, producing His fruit in us and bring new life to our lives. The result is a third culture, a Kingdom culture that is formed when all of God’s children bring their culture to the table and allow Jesus to redeem it and the Holy Spirit to purify it so that it reflects the Kingdom of God in its own beautiful and unique way.

North American brothers and sisters, there is danger in thinking we don’t need the global church, or that our role is one of superiority or patronage. Nor is it healthy to completely disengage out of fear, albeit valid, of repeating the patriarchal tendencies of the past and unconsciously or consciously exerting disproportional influence. The reality is that we need each other. As the body of Christ, each member is a vital part and cannot function well without the others: “The eye cannot wail at the hand, “I have no need for you,” nor could the head bellow at the feet, “I won’t go one more step with you.” (1 Cor. 12:21, The Voice).

This idea of dependency rubs against our Western values. I think the North American church, while theoretically embracing the need for the global church, still has a long way to go in learning how to build interdependent relationships with our international brothers and sisters. It comes from a posture of sitting and listening and learning from others before jumping in with our theological knowledge and Western answers. This requires time and patience, things that don’t come easily in our time-conscious and efficiency-driven culture.

These kinds of relationships don’t just happen, especially given the required cross-cultural effort. Knowing my own weaknesses, as well as the tendencies of my culture, my concern for the North American church is that we will be so consumed with our own busy schedules crammed full of church activities, family life, work, school, and social events that we won’t take the time to sit and listen, to pray for, and intentionally engage and learn from our global church family (which is continually growing in the global south, but declining in the global north). The North American church often excels in reaching out locally and building community at the local level, even regional and national, but as the wider North American Mennonite church decentralizes and fractures, the danger of isolation looms ever larger, making a broader, diverse community more valuable.

Essentially, this conviction to value and embrace interdependent relationships in the global family is how I ended up volunteering with Mennonite World Conference (MWC) on the Young Anabaptists Committee. It’s the most natural avenue for me to be connected in prayer and fellowship with my global Anabaptist family.

The difficulty, however, is “How can I participate?” since relationship across distance takes a good measure of intentionality. How do we learn to depend on and value each other around the world? This is what we as the Young Anabaptists (YABs) Committee of MWC try to facilitate among young adults: bringing them together in fellowship, but also empowering them so their voice is heard in MWC and in their churches. We do this currently in three main practical ways:

  • Ongoing sharing of stories and prayer requests online (Facebook and Instagram). This happens as each continental representative networks and visits with churches and young adults in their region as they are able. If you would like your continental representative to come visit and/or speak, email us at yabs@mwc-cmm.org
  • The new annual YABs Fellowship Week (in June)
  • Our Global Youth Summit (18+ yrs) that takes place alongside MWC’s Assembly Gathered every six years. The next will take place in Indonesia in 2021 (start saving)!

The mission of maintaining a globally interdependent fellowship of believers is a tall order, but we—the YABs Committee—are dedicated to it, because we believe it’s worth it. The beauty of diversity in relationship is worth the mess it brings. We are always brainstorming new ideas for how to facilitate better long-distance communication and relationships between young Anabaptists so please don’t hesitate to contact us with any ideas or input you have!


The Young Anabaptists Committee is made up of a representative for each continent along with a mentor from the previous committee. They serve as volunteers and their work is funded through people who want to give towards the vision of empowering young adults at a global level. If you would like to give towards the work of the YABs Committee, you can do so here (specify for YABs). Please contact us with any questions, stories, photos, etc. at yabs@mwc-cmm.org

You can read more about the YABs Committee and their work on their website. Larissa Swartz serves as both the North American Representative and chair of the committee. She has her Bachelor’s degree in Spanish and works on staff with International Friendships Inc. (IFI) in Dayton, Ohio. If you want to read more about how our culture shapes the way we view Scripture, she would recommend the book, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes.

A Global Perspective

Tour Reflection: Institutions

anikar

by Anika Reynar


Can cultural, financial, and generational challenges really be addressed through a new structure?

During the EVI listening tour, this question was often repeated. It’s a question that continues to be asked implicitly in many of the Working Group reports, and was recently addressed by John. H Neufeld, in his article Constants in the context of change. In all of these places, I hear similar answers: Yes. We can imagine a new structure that will address some of the challenges we’re facing. But, no, a new structure is not and cannot be our end goal. It’s only a part of figuring out how to be the church together.

Throughout the transition process, a new structure has been posited as one way, if not the primary way, to respond to growing cultural challenges. By shifting resources from the National to the Regional Church, the hope, as expressed in A Proposal for Revitalizing MC Canada & Area Churches, is that the National church will function “as a place of connection, communion across the country, identity,” enabling us “to serve and worship God together more faithfully and effectively.”

This sounds good in principle. And yet, I want to linger for a moment with the word “effectively.” We want to move our church structure in the best and right direction. We want it to be effective. We desire to follow the calling of God’s Spirit in a time where we are challenged by trends that often seem to be beyond our control:

  • Individualism and a lack of commitment
  • Impatience with diversity
  • A shift to postmodernism (defined broadly by a distrust of objective certainties and absolute truths)
  • Technological fragmentation
  • Disillusionment with professionalized institutions

In light of these trends, what does our desire for an effective structure point to? What are we trying to accomplish? Let me test out an idea.

When faced with shifts that we feel are beyond our control, we try to find ways to be effective in the things we can exert control over, namely, the structure of the church. Yet, as we seek to take control of the direction of the church, our fears and anxieties about our lack of control over both the church, and the broader cultural trends surrounding us are also at play.

In the EVI listening tour, many people expressed a desire for control, and the feeling of lacking control over the direction the church is headed. These expressions might be split into two dominant and opposing postures: “Hanging on” and “Letting go.”

Those who are hanging on understand the National Church structure to be the best entity to mitigate individualism. Here, a desire was expressed that the National Church structure would continue to be the primary unifying body, functioning to:

  • Minimize further isolation and division between congregational groups
  • Maintain theological certainty
  • Hold together a common Mennonite/Anabaptist identity

Those who are letting go expressed a desire to release the “professionalized,” “hierarchized,” and “bureaucratic” national church institutions. In this posture, the increased focus on the congregation (rather than the National Church) comes with a sigh of relief, insofar as:

  • institutional and cultural identities can be held more loosely, recognizing, as one workshop participant stated, that “God is not bound by our structures.”
  • each congregation has the freedom to do as they choose, provided others are allowed to do the same.
  • Space is created for theological uncertainty.

Each of these postures carries its own dangers.

For those who are holding on, the desire for a stable Mennonite identity and an effective structure can quickly come at the cost of creativity and flexibility, and can effect the marginalization of those on the theological and geographical edges.

For those who are letting go, the temptation is to fall into a pattern of independence and toleration where each congregation lets the others do as they wish, seeking neither unification nor agreement. Here, the temptation is to avoid the differences that might make conversation worthwhile.

At the Mennonite Church Canada Special Assembly in October, these postures, as well as other postures, will be brought into the same space. As various perspectives intersect, I hope that each of us will be open enough to recognize that no one person has possession of truth. I hope that we will be humble enough to recognize that we’re not going to get the structure right. I hope that we are aware enough to recognize that whatever structure we choose, it is not going to solve the many challenges that we face in today’s time and age.

So where does this leave us?

I think it leaves us with the question that was appropriately posed by John H. Neufeld: “What is the core vision for the church which undergirds whatever structures we create and is foundational for the life of every congregation?”

I would suggest this: When we think about the core vision for the church, let’s remember that we all belong within the same story – the story of Jesus.

Through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus taught his disciples to release all desires for power and control. Jesus continues to call us, the church, to form a new social body that is not enslaved to the powers, structures, and claims of the world, but rather is focused on the love of enemy, nonviolent resistance, repentance, servanthood, and so on.

This release of control, and commitment to the path of Jesus, is patient and vulnerable work. As we near the assembly in October, I hope that we will be wise enough to recognize, in the words of John Howard Yoder, that “the key to the obedience of God’s people is not their effectiveness but their patience.”

So let us be patient, seeking to listen deeply to the people who have already done incredible discernment work — the Transition team, the working groups, various congregations, members of EVI, and others – as well as to those voices who have yet to speak.


This piece continues our series of post-tour reflections. For the summary of themes covered, click here. Let us know what you think! Leave a comment below, or send a message.

Tour Reflection: Institutions

Tour Reflection: Leadership

madeleinew

by Madeleine Wichert


What makes a good leader? A brainstorm on this question often yields an impressive list of ideals, qualities, and characteristics. Even if we feel that we ourselves don’t match up to our own standards of a leader, we hope there are some out there who do, and who we may look to and trust as our leaders. I think most of us know that we hold others to very high standards, especially when it comes to leadership. Those who are responsible should, many would argue, be held to higher standards of morality and conduct. In many ways, our brainstorm on what makes a good leader is important in discerning who will lead well. In other ways, this same list of aspirations and ideals can become a measuring stick which is put against people, and a rubric of evaluation by which we judge whether someone is passing or failing. How can we be good stewards of our language, the words we use and the expectations we convey regarding leadership? How can our language be a constructive rather than destructive tool in discussions of transition?

Throughout EVI’s work, and particularly our workshop tour, leadership was one of the themes which came up regularly. It was even in one of our guiding questions for discussion: “what do you want the leaders of Mennonite Church Canada to know?” A wealth of different thoughts, feelings, and perspectives emerged in the responses to this question. There was a concern and push for more youth leadership, which Katrina’s blog post talks about. There were comments about who is the future of the Church, explored in our tour summary reflection. Discussions of diversity came up, addressed by Anneli. And of course, there was much discussion around the formal structural leadership within Mennonite Church Canada, as it currently stands as well as visions and fears for the future. This element of the leadership question is usually what people are referring to when they talk about “our leaders,” and will be the focus of the rest of this post.

2017-01-15 09.53.51
Workshop participants in Lethbridge, AB.

This particular area of leadership bears the tension of many hopes, expectations, frustrations, disappointments, and trust. The language used in talking about “our leaders,” or, “the leadership of MC Canada” throughout our workshops certainly conveyed this tension, which I will attempt, in turn, to convey here. We heard—in every place we visited—a deep gratitude for the energy, care, and work of our leaders, often alongside a sense of frustration. We heard a desire for leaders who can make decisions and lead the way, and a desire for collective participation in those decisions so that they feel truly representative. We heard a hope for leaders who are grounded, as well as a need for leaders to be flexible and creative. We heard people’s comfort in having a designated official leadership, in tension with the call for shared responsibility within a priesthood of all believers. We heard the anticipation and hope people have for the potential of the Future Directions transition, and we heard a lot of fear. And we heard, quite often, the tension between the trust people have in our leaders, and a sense of mistrust and call for greater transparency. Overall, it seemed the answers to the question of what people want our leadership to know had more to do with what makes a good leader, and the kind of leaders the Church needs, than anything else.

I wonder whether an important question to be asking now is, “what do we expect of our leaders? What exactly is their role in this thing we call Church?” Perhaps this is an obvious question with self-evident answers, since I just spent the last three paragraphs talking about it. But you may recall that the feedback and themes I summarized were responses to a different question. I opened with the question, “What makes a good leader?” That’s a good question, not unrelated, but a slightly different perspective. Our language and discussions often seem to convey our expectations of who our leaders should be—the whole vast list of them—without actually addressing the question of what their (and our) roles are within the body of Christ.

Once we shift the angle and focus of the question, a new discussion emerges. At the centre of all the conflicting, important, fruitful, dialectic, and overwhelming expectations, what is the role of the Church’s leadership, whoever may fall into that category? At risk of over-simplification, I would like to propose, based on everything I’ve heard on tour and in conversations since then, that a leader’s role is this: relationship. Connecting with all the different “levels” or areas of Church, facilitating connections across the country, communication, transparency, humble and open listening, praying with and for each other, trust-building. Is it possible for much else to really be accomplished if there is not first the foundation of relationship from which to interact and work? (For another perspective on the conversation of relationship, have a look at Laura’s blog post.)

The above may sound like a rhetorical question. Taken as such, it certainly portrays my own biases, from which I write. For those with different biases, however, they are genuine questions. I hope we can all be open to listening to each other’s collective wisdom. I personally have come to understand the centrality of relationship- and trust-building to be true in many areas of leadership. If the leaders of a congregation are those with pastoral roles, with the primary role being relationship, then doesn’t it make sense for it to also be so on the national level? Through relationship, the work, challenge, and joy that it brings, all the tensions described earlier can somehow be held together.

I will close here by reiterating the immense gratitude there is for the leaders of our Church, national, regional, and congregational. You have answered a calling which not many would wish to take on. Please continue to work in the vulnerability of relationship. For the rest of us, may we remember to show our care as well as our expectations, in our words and actions, and remember that we are all the Church together.


This is the fifth in our in-depth tour reflection series. Click here for a summary of all the topics we’re exploring.

We love comments! Leave one here or send us a message.

Tour Reflection: Leadership

Tour Reflection: Neighbours

lauracp

by Laura Carr-Pries


You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbour as yourself.

I grew up hearing these words in Sunday school, in stories and songs, and memorizing this scripture passage.  These words carry what I have come to understand as a core piece of the Christian faith, and hold particular significance in the Mennonite tradition. With strong connections to non-violence, peacebuilding and service work, if makes sense that during our workshop tour, some stated that “the name Mennonite means to be a witness to everyone.”

Engaging with our neighbours has been central for how the Mennonite church has understood itself and the Bible, but that doesn’t mean that we’ve figured out the best way to do this. Because of deep care for our neighbours, we ask questions about how to do this well, both locally and globally. Throughout the course of the tour, I heard people sharing a deep concern for what is happening in the Mennonite church regarding mission and service, particularly international witness. Continue reading “Tour Reflection: Neighbours”

Tour Reflection: Neighbours

Tour Reflection: Youth

katrinawoelk

by Katrina Woelk


In some ways, you’ve already heard my thoughts on this topic. In November 2016, I wrote a post about being intergenerational. Youth and young adult engagement is included in that. I still believe what I said back then. We are all the church right now. Youth and young adults are not just the future, but have to be understood as the church here and now (along with everyone else).

Because of this understanding, I think it’s somewhat dangerous to write a blog post about specific age demographic. It suggests that one age group is more important than another. However, the topic of engaging the “emerging generation” came up across the country, and in every single conversation. Because of this, we decided that we need to let everyone know what the rest of the country is thinking, and dive into understanding our youth and young adult demographic—the demographic that is already the church in a variety of different ways, and will continue to be. Continue reading “Tour Reflection: Youth”

Tour Reflection: Youth

Tour Reflection: Diversity

Anneli

by Anneli Loepp Thiessen


Diversity. The “D” word. Something we want, but don’t know how to achieve. Something we talk about to assure ourselves we are sensitive to differences. Something we would do anything for. Well, almost anything.

Throughout our EVI tour, diversity came up frequently. We heard questions such as: “How can we be more diverse?” “What can we do to make ourselves more welcoming?” We heard laments that the attendees at our events were mostly of European descent. We heard laments that the Interim Council was predominantly males.

Diversity came up a lot.

While we heard disappointment and fear in our discussions on diversity, we also heard stories of hope. We heard about churches that offered “how-to” nights in their communities. We heard about churches that successfully incorporated a second language into their services. We heard about churches that were so committed to gender balance that it became a number one priority in creating church structures. We heard about churches that created meaningful connections with their local community centres.

In a time when we are already in so much transition, it can be difficult to think about all the other ways that our church might be called to transition. In making our Mennonite church more accessible to our neighbours, some suggested that we have to make a very intentional move to give something up. Some wondered if we need to stop asking who an individual’s grandparents are. Others wondered if we need to stop singing songs with words that are foreign even to fluent English speakers. It was suggested that larger portions of budget need to be given to outreach initiatives.

These changes come with huge amounts of sacrifice. They mean holding our traditions more loosely and daring to venture outside our walls.

When Laura Carr-Pries and I were in Waterloo for the EVI tour in November, we had the chance to sit down with Brian Bauman (MCEC’s Mission Minister) and discuss some of his insight on the topic. Brian observes that relationships are the key to establishing connections with our neighbours. While this may seem obvious, it struck me as somewhat revolutionary when he shared the insight with us.

Establishing relationships with strangers can be intimidating, but I believe it has the potential to be incredibly rewarding.

As we look at questions of diversity in the gender of our leadership structures, what strikes me is that even today, when so much more equality has been achieved than in previous decades, it takes a very intentional effort to achieve gender diversity. This goes for inequalities of both genders. It is clear that there is gender imbalance in the Interim Council for Mennonite Church Canada. But there are also areas within our church that men are clearly the minority, like nursery helpers in many congregations.

As much as I wish I had the solution to creating more diverse congregations, I don’t. What I did learn throughout our tour is that becoming a more diverse church needs to be an intentional effort on our part. We need to go out of our way to build relationships. We need to keep seeking out gender balance, not taking “no” for an answer. We need to restructure our systems to accommodate different ethnicities and genders.

Are we up for it? Conversations throughout our tour would suggest that yes, we are. So let’s take this time to continue to collaborate, brainstorm, and partner together to share the church we love so deeply with everyone.


This is the second post in our series of in-depth tour reflections. Click here to find the list of other themes that we’re exploring.

Tell us what you think! Comment here, or send us a message.

Tour Reflection: Diversity