“Does that make sense?”

- guest post by Jonas Cornelsen

As a first-year student, it’s scary to speak up in class. This problem affects both students and professors. I took intro theology in my first year at CMU.

One day, the professor must have realized he’d been talking for over half an hour straight. He finished his point, took a step back from the lectern and asked, “Does that make sense?” Clearly not—the room was full of vacant stares. But class was over, there was no time to explain, and by then nobody remembered exactly what didn’t make sense. We were frustrated. I’m sure he was too.

For this post, Willard asked me to reflect on trust between Mennonite Church Canada leaders and constituents. I think of it in terms of clear, frequent, two-way communication. Misunderstandings hurt both sides. Between the publication of the Future Directions Task Force Final Report (FDTF) and Addendum last December, and the 2016 Assembly in Saskatoon seven months later, many expressed frustration that we, as congregations and individuals, hadn’t been fully informed or consulted about these big changes. I was one of them. But some hadn’t read the Task Force’s interim documents, or given feedback when previously asked. I was one of those too.

I’m not saying the Task Force’s interim communication was perfect. Like my prof’s lecture, it may have been complex, or difficult to follow for non-experts. I suspect this could have been fixed in both cases if something had been said. I recall one Task Force member saying they were pleased with the level of response the Final Report generated; they only wished it had been there all along.

It’s remarkable how similar the frustrations are on both sides. We want better communication from our leaders. They want the same from us.

It takes courage to speak up. We often think everyone around us gets it and our best bet is to catch up, or give up, in silence. My theology class, and the confusion after the FDTF report, suggest differently. If you’re lost, say something. Soon. It’s better to interrupt the lecture than to barely recognize the final exam.

MC Canada has called a special assembly for October, 2017, to vote on the new structure for our national church. This is sooner than I expected, but there’s still time to get into the conversation. Check out the Interim Council's transition site, or page through the Canadian Mennonite when it arrives. Emerging Voices Initiative (which I’m part of) was privileged to host a series of workshops this fall, where young and old have discussed our church’s future together. Events continue in Manitoba and Alberta this January.

We, as constituents, have a right to expect clarity from our leaders, and a plan for the future that reflects the best possible balance of our hopes. We need not wait until voting time to exercise that right. We’re more likely to be satisfied if we ask questions sooner, and show we’re listening.

Does that make sense?

The Covenant of Disagreement

In the past, the Church could hardly imagine placing 'covenant' and 'disagreement' into a shared concept. Disagreement represented the opposite of covenant. Covenant necessitated agreement.

But no longer. It is now possible to discuss covenant in the context of disagreement.

Followers of Jesus Christ are beginning to realize that covenant speaks more to relationship than it does to theological agreement. Jesus made it clear that covenant people commit to "turning the other cheek" and "praying for" those considered enemies.

This is no easy task! Indeed an endeavour quite impossible if not empowered by the spirit of Jesus Christ.

It is only reasonable then for followers of Jesus Christ to extend that same grace to fellow members of the body of Christ. If covenant people are instructed to love their enemies, how much more their brothers and sisters with whom they disagree?

In a recent trip to Israel/Palestine an ecumenical organization challenged a group of denominational leaders that unless we are able to speak as a unified voice of diversity, we have no platform to offer anything to the situation in the Middle East. I agree.

A reshaped understanding of covenant is an important challenge to a world becoming increasingly fragmented by ideological, theological, and ethnic conflict. Followers of Jesus Christ must stand ready to embrace disagreement within the covenant of loving your neighbour as yourself. This is not a poetic ideal. It is a covenant responsibility.

The global community has considered it important to remember the devastation of war. Divided church bodies realize destructive outcomes of internal conflict. Loss of life, destruction of families, relationships broken by harsh words are the lamented impacts results of armed violent conflict. Such lament should be expressed. But so should a commitment to peace that displays a new comfort with disagreement. Disagreement is an opportunity for conversation, not a reason for conflict. The Christian faith must learn to embrace disagreement if it hopes to be relevant in a diverse world.

I think God has provided an opportunity for the church of Jesus Christ to shine. This is a chance to display a renewed commitment of love and respect for all people of diverse understandings. It is an opportunity to boldly model how to remain in disagreement without resorting to hateful and hurtful rhetoric. It is an opportunity to portray the compelling love of Jesus Christ.

I pray that we will rise up to this opportunity. I pray that followers of Jesus Christ everywhere will commit themselves to represent the covenant of disagreement.

A conflicting time of year

November is a conflicted time of year for me. And November 11 – Remembrance Day – sits right there near the middle of the month. It cries out for a response.

Do I wear a red poppy? Or should I wear a white poppy in support of the No More War movement born in the 1920s? Or perhaps I should wear MCC’s “To remember is to work for peace” button.

Should I attend veterans’ memorial services? Or should I participate in a counter-cultural peace expression as some Christians do? I don’t want to dishonour the veterans who say “Lest we forget” and “Never again.” Nor do I, as a Christian believer in non-violent peace building, want to honour war.

The tradition of Remembrance Day has evolved to mean many different things to many different people. That complicates matters. I’m not certain that any symbol I wear can adequately reconcile my conflicted feelings about Nov. 11.

What does seem right to me is to respond to Remembrance Day graciously and without confrontation.

I am reminded of Palmer Becker’s three main points in his booklet What is an Anabaptist Christian:  “Jesus is the centre of our faith. Community is the centre of our lives. Reconciliation is the centre of our work.”

Palmer’s third point is particularly relevant to me. I want my response to say that reconciliation is the centre of my work. But I’m not sure that a symbol – any symbol – can adequately convey that message.

But I can imagine what that message might look like. Not just on Remembrance Day, but throughout the whole year.

It should look like respecting and befriending those who chose to sacrifice their lives in war, even though I may disagree with their choice. It should mean supporting veterans in their efforts to seek healing when they return home – even if I disagree with the reasons for their injuries. It should mean we graciously welcome back to our Mennonite faith communities those of our own who have chosen military service – even though we may not believe that military intervention is a faithful solution. These are all responses offered in the spirit of reconciliation.

Discerning how to respond to Remembrance Day is not an easy task. But neither should it be. To question the reason for which good people have sacrificed their health and lives should never be an easy exercise. Only with humility and respect can helpful dialogue occur.

How will you respond to Remembrance Day?

When Leadership Trembles

My hands quivered. My heart raced. My legs felt wobbly. The sound of mourning and panic billowed through the dust filled air. I made my way through the rubble and began looking for those I was responsible for.

This was Port-au-Prince, Haiti during the earthquake in January 2010. I was there with a small church team from New Brunswick. Thankfully the entire team was safe despite being surrounded by rubble and debris. The endless night that followed of treating crowds of injured people left me trembling – and feeling useless and helpless.

The experience has left a lasting impression on me and has utterly shaken my approach to leadership. I shudder when I think of what may have been. Thankfully my leadership task involved evacuating a team that was shaken - but alive.

I am still sorting through the various emotions and perspectives that have been dislodged by the earthquake. I know that the experience has changed me, but I am not fully sure how.

Experiencing utter uselessness in the face of disaster is humbling. Realizing, that in a torrent of desperate need your best effort is pointless is demoralizing. No feelings of heroism. No evidences of positive impact. The dead wrapped in bed sheets mocked any feelings of effectiveness.

I carry Haiti with me in my new role. The injured and dying keep things in perspective. I often wonder; does the approach to leadership change if you are not trying to avoid being hurt or determining to avoid failure?

Maybe it is only when leadership trembles – that it is no longer afraid.

Costly Vision

A recent news release prompted a very interesting response. I have been mulling it over ever since I received it.

The news release indicated that Mennonite Church Canada was discerning the need for a smaller structure in keeping with the seven year trend of declining donation revenue. This is no small task. The article identified the current economic strain as part of the reason for the declining donation trend.

The response I received from one of our pastors provided another perspective to the analysis. This pastor attributed the downward trend in donations to the gathering steam of the missional church vision the denomination embraced several years ago. Data analysis indicates that over the same seven year period, donations to congregations have remained relatively steady. I don’t have hard evidence to back up my next claim, but it makes anecdotal sense that the greater embrace of the missional church vision by a congregation, the greater the increase of donations to that vision. In other words, where people are getting excited about what their congregation is doing, the financial support follows.

This is reason to celebrate. Indeed, it is exciting to see congregations all across Canada discerning the activity of God and becoming aligned with that activity in their arena of ministry. However, this exciting development has created a challenge. Congregations are getting so excited about what they are doing that they are forgetting the missional ministries of the national church and area churches. With this as a reality the pastor responded to the news release by saying: “living out the missional vision is costly to the denomination!” So, now the national church must reposition itself to engage differently with the success from the pews that we have worked and prayed for.

Of course, there is still important work that must be continued by the national church. International ministries, pastoral leadership development, resourcing congregations, providing a national voice - these are still core responsibilities of the national church entity. They represent activity that remains true to our values and ethos of a community of faith engaging in ministry together.

These are disconcerting times for the national church. Over time, I believe we will also see a more exciting future for the national and area churches. The missional church vision is taking root and changing what it means to be Church in Canada. But for the ministries and activities of Mennonite Church Canada, it has become a costly vision.

Maybe It Really Is That Simple

I have had the wonderful pleasure of attending the Annual Sessions of our Area Churches this winter. It was encouraging to experience the energy and excitement of those who have shared a long commitment to the work of the broader church. I also hear a common desire to see this commitment passed along to others.

I usually worship with a congregation in the Area Church following these meetings. This too has been an important way for me to better understand our Canadian Church family.

During one of those congregational visits I was able to meet with a small group of young adults. We talked about what it means to be church in a changing context. They described how their peers are busy, and seem to portray little interest in traditional church. There was however, a keen interest in being engaged with issues of poverty and social justice. It was suggested that a natural place for people to become engaged with the church is when the church engages with these issues. We also noted that having responsibilities at Worship Services increases the probability of young adults attending those Worship Services.

I found the conversation intriguing and insightful. These young adults were swimming against the current of contemporary society and making congregational involvement an important part of their lives. I felt honoured to be in the presence of such pioneers.

We continued the conversation, discussing how we might be able to increase the involvement of young adults in our congregations across Canada. As the dialogue came to a close, I noticed a young man sitting quietly among the circle. He had been engaged in the discussion but had not said a lot. So I asked him for his thoughts.

He paused for a moment and said; “Most of my friends are not interested in Church. It’s too bad, because I think they would really enjoy it.”

The group disbanded, but this final statement impressed me. It was such a simple assessment, but such a profound clarity. After debating effective ways to engage young adults, perhaps the solution is simpler than we realized. If we offer more involvement with Worship Services and congregational ministry, young adults might just find that they really do enjoy it.

Maybe it really is that simple.

Easy Humour

One of my favourite tasks as General Secretary is to worship with one of our 225 congregations across Canada. It gives me plenty of food for thought. One of those snacks occurred recently during a speaking assignment.

I arrived at the congregation location and parked beside the cemetery. A quick scan revealed that one particular surname was very prominent. Conversations inside the building confirmed this as a current reality as well.

As I waited for my invitation as the morning speaker, I thought it would be funny to introduce myself by pretending to stumble on my name, by incorrectly using the prominent surname. “I would get a laugh out of that,” I smiled to myself.

But I hesitated. I noticed that the Song Leader in the service did not have the prominent surname. I realized how my little joke, although not intended, could easily make that person feel disassociated.

It would be easy humour. But easy humour that relies on insider knowledge or prior shared experiences always carries the possibility of making people feel excluded. We never intend to disregard anyone, but easy humour can make it difficult for others to fit in.

So, I abandoned the’ sure winner’ opening line and contemplated something more subtle and complex. I momentarily considered a seamless transition into one of my best “Knock, Knock” jokes. In the end, I opted not to share my humour, and instead chuckled to myself behind the pulpit.

Most of my humour is best appreciated by myself anyway. Besides, it’s easier that way.

Getting it Right

Recently I met with faculty and staff of one of our schools in Canada. Mennonite Church Canada is fortunate to have several schools to educate our children and prepare our leaders.

I had been asked to share what I have been hearing or experiencing in my visits across Canada. So I explained the appeal of Anabaptist principles that I had sensed especially among students and young adults.

"The emphasis on discipleship and community is very attractive," I explained.

The quiet nods of assent indicated the broad agreement to my assessment. Then one of the faculty broke the silence.

"Actually," he said, "I think it is Jesus they are drawn to and the high view of Christ found in Anabaptism fits well with the appeal."

I blinked back across the table. How easy it is to forget the obvious.

I smiled and thanked God for the gentle but important reminder.

"Sorry Jesus," I silently prayed, and quietly promised to get it right.

Items of National Concern

I sipped my coffee and listened intently. This was an important beginning to an important task. I sat across the table from the MP and his Communications Assistant waiting for his insights to my question.

It seems to me that one of the responsibilities of a denomination is be the collective voice to our government. This is a task that no other part of the Church can do. Only the denomination can represent all 225 congregations within 5 Area Churches. So I began with this meeting to try and glean some perspective from one of our MP's.

"What are the concerns of a national scope that you think the church should have a voice in," I asked?

Together, we identified three items of concern that transcend across Canada. These items affect every Area Church and most likely most of our congregations. The three items of national concern are: Aboriginal Relations, Multiculturalism/anti-racism, and Poverty.

I indicated that I was hoping to meet with other MP's as I visit congregations across Canada, and he offered to furnish me with some names and addresses.

It was my first inquiry. One I hope to repeat several more times across the country. It was a good meeting.

Before I left I was also encouraged to offer a positive voice on behalf of the Church. I was invited to remain in dialogue and to offer concerns.

"But we also need to hear when government gets it right," said the MP.

So true.

Facebook Hesitation

I thought I had a wonderful idea. But when I tried to implement it I found it wasn't such a great idea after-all.

I wanted to ask young adults/youth what they liked about the Church and videotape their responses, which I would post on my Facebook page. However finding willing participants was very difficult. Only those who already knew me were willing to be video taped. And some of them were quite hesitant as well.

This could mean: a) youth and young adults do not like the church. b) youth and young adults may like the church but do not want to associated with it in a public forum or c) youth and young adults do not want to be associated with me in any public forum.

Whatever the reason, this experience has caused me to question my understanding of Facebook. It appears to be much more relational than I had realized. Association is still seen as important.

As a church leader, it caused me to appreciate and value more deeply being accepted as a Facebook friend. This association is a gift that must be respected and treated carefully.

New Role

"So, what do you do," asked my friend when learning of my appointment as the new General Secretary for Mennonite Church Canada. I blinked back, straight faced, searching wildly for an impressive answer.

"I, ..... I, ..... do, ..... general, ......... ah, ..... secretar - ial, ..... duties, ... and, ...stuff," I smiled back with my most important looking smile.

Thank God for friends, with low expectations, who will allow me time to discover this new role.

I am actually quite excited about the opportunity of helping our Area Churches and congregations be part of God's activity in this world.

If you follow this blog, we will discover together exactly what it is that the General Secretary does. But more importantly, what it is that God is up to across the country in our Area Churches and congregations.