Spirit becoming

St. Mark’s, Kitsilano

Anglican Church of Canada

St. Mark’s Anglican Church

1805 Larch Street,

Vancouver, BC

Canada, V6K 3N9

Phone: 604-736-2838

Fax: 604-736-2845

E-mail: stmarkkits@telus.net

Web; www.stmarks.ca

Weekly Schedule:

Sunday

Wednesday

Thursday

9:30 am

7:00 pm

11:45 am

7:00 pm

Community Mass

Centering Prayer

Community Meal

Contemplative Eucharist

The Spirit’s Becoming

The Community of St. Mark’s

A Conversation in Progress!

The Spirit’s Community

It is here that religious community enters in, offering not so much certainty (although this is sometimes our assumption or our desire) but rather a way of being, a way of addressing life which gives expression to that which we name as holy, sacred, presence or god. The sacred narratives of most faith traditions express the need to notice, to make considered choices about the manner in which we live. This never ending need to notice and choose is why idealized community is never authentic- the projected ideal short circuits the spirit’s nudging to notice the work actually required, masking life with promises of wonder!

Spiritual community serves a ‘truth’ which cannot be possessed, for it is a path followed or a relational process creatively engaged. As such, community is forever in flux, ever changing in response to the sacred in its midst. The dynamic of authentic community will endeavor to ‘hear’ the personal address of the ‘Holy One’ in its midst and not seek to subvert the ever-creative response to such address! Such response is ever-creative precisely because it acknowledges its incompleteness. ‘Divine truth’ or sacred promise will never be received as a finished product. This is to say that our communal life is not, and cannot be, served by seeking to implement ‘programs promising grace’ but only by listening for, participating in the unfolding of grace within the lived moment.¹

Fighting Truth

However, lately, so much of our ‘faith’ seems to be determined by a commitment to do battle, to fight for ‘the truth’. And yet, the very act of fighting suggests that the real goal of this endeavour is not the hearing of truth but gaining or maintaining possession of the truth: to have the final word. That we so easily draw opposing lines speaks volumes of the despair of our faith, the death of our hope and the ultimate denial of love. It reveals a determinative ‘ethic’- that the point of life is really to ‘possess success’ by achieving victory over those who oppose.² That we so easily identify others as ‘enemies’ is not really surprising; that we so easily sidestep ‘loving our enemies’ should give us pause. How easily and how quickly we justify our ‘defence of the faith’ by means which deny that faith and indeed our humanity!

Where two or three gather . . .

there’s a crowd!

The question of existence (and hence the ultimate question of our faith) concerns the manner in which we choose to live. We live only in relationship ‘with’ and never apart from others. We can choose the isolation of ‘the crowd’ but we can never remove ourselves from the relational foundation of existence. We can dedicate our life to the ultimately futile attempt to control and dominate, but in the end, despite our best efforts, we cannot elude the ‘relational return to the cosmos’ known as death nor the insistent nudging of the ever elusive spirit. Given these simple, yet profound truths, it is remarkable how much time and effort is given over to the futility of control. I am quite certain that there is little more important in life, in particular the life of faith, than to reconsider the question of existence which is, ultimately, a consideration of the normative call of community, a call which addresses the numbing effects of the conforming, confessional crowds.

Where two or three gather…I will be there!

Faithful A-theism!

Most of our judgements are birthed of the convictions of our beliefs. We are so convinced of the definitive truth of our theologies, that we defend them as expressive of life itself. But they are not, nor can they ever be, life, for we do not know of what we speak. As Paul states, ‘for now we see only in a mirror dimly…’ (See I Corinthians 13:12). In place of hubris, birthed of the union of certainty and conviction, we need to embrace the insight of Martin Buber, who said that God, although ‘the Being nearer to me than my I’ may only ‘be addressed not expressed’⁵ Community requires hearing divine revelation in mutual lived speech as opposed to answering a call to battle for divine truth. Communal faith requires the ‘a-theism’ of living without demanding definitions of divinity.6

Conversation’s Call: Learning to Living With!

The a-theism of lived speech is the commitment to living with the other as central to authentic human spiritual experience. It is a commitment to attending (deep listening) to the other as expressive of sacred communion within creation (community). Community is nurtured and sustained by learning and practicing the ‘sacred art of conversation’. Conversation is the nexus point of I – Thou⁷ relationships which address sacred otherness by navigating the demanding, objectifying expressions of the ego’s dominance. As the ‘act of living with’⁸, conversation is concerned with tending (mindfulness) the sacred ground between us, withdrawing from the temptation to reduce others to objects of conjecture or definition. To converse is to respect the ‘con-verse’ (the opposite) by sidestepping the ego barriers of opposition, risking encounter with those whom we previously opposed. The ‘art of conversation’ is to risk the creative presence of the spirit ‘hovering’ in our midst. Sound too fanciful? Well consider this- when conversation is silenced or refused: hope dies, denying love, birthing despair.

Conversation’s Art

That we have no existence apart from others means that there is no ground, holy or otherwise, except that which exists ‘between’. Attending to what comes between us (or has come) is to express the very essence of life’s creative possibilities. To refuse encounter with what is between us is to deny life. To become fully alive is to undertake life’s quest of traversing the holy ground between. What exists between us is the promise of hope, the ‘thin place’9 of the sacred emergence of the considered questions of conversations’ art. In other words, the sacred is that which questions us from within and without.

If necessary use words

Living Wellness

Conversation as an art is a discipline of living wellness! As such, it requires the practice and patience of persistence. To commit to this art is not so much idealism as it is working with the realism of honest failure which is, after all, simply the admission that we do not control nor determine outcomes. Living wellness is not so much a function of successfully achieving goals as it is committing to the process of becoming, unafraid of occasionally floundering. If we cannot find words, we will sit in silence. If it is a struggle, we will refuse to let go until we are blessed! If we have to let go, we will resist the allure of dismissive anger, the ‘curse of raca’.¹³ As a dialogic encounter with creative wisdom, conversation is the animating spirit of truly viable communities of faith. As we are committed ‘to living with’, we persist in honouring hope, the thin place where grace pushes through the veils of control.

Texts of Delight

It may have slipped your memory but during our annual meeting, ‘the Un-vestry’, we were encouraged to have a conversation about what brings us delight. The responses were wonderfully varied and yet illuminative of an emerging communal path which is:

· …profoundly relational in terms of family, friends, community and creation.

· …expressive of an embodied sensuality, sensitivity and physicality.

· …expressive of a grounded ‘spirituality’ in their connection to beauty, bounty and abundance

· deeply committed to and expressive of human/natural creativity.

Out of the richness of our story and traditions, life is renewing. Our ‘texts of delight’ suggest what we have already begun to notice- that which is most personally delightful is also that which grounds us as a truly viable community. As a community, St. Mark’s is responding to a new journey along faith’s path. But where did it begin?

History’s Lesson

This journey of faith began years ago. During the 1990’s there was a growing recognition that St. Mark’s Church needed to make certain decisions in order to survive.

And so, in response to survival’s call, the covenant with Trinity and the Jubilee Cluster came into being. I would suggest that the ‘failure’ of both of these endeavours represented the ‘death’ of St. Mark’s as a church. However, as we know, we did not disappear. Why? This death occasioned the emergence of something different. With the failure of ‘survival programs’, something eternally insistent was being birthed in our midst: an emerging communal path. Over the last couple of years, we have together been responding to the spirit, imperfectly but persistently addressing the sacred in our midst. This has and does create confusion, raise questions and take us out of our comfort zone! But notice- we have continued along the road less travelled, continued to voice our faith in song and prayer, in questioning and voicing concerns. As a community delighting in the relational, we will languish in unfilled longing if we ignore the spirit’s elusive call emerging from the holy ‘ground between us’. We must continue to listen, coming to voice daring to be open to the spirit’s movement and leading of the community.

An Icon of Spirit’s Becoming

It has been said of St. Mark’s that we are not so much a 102 year old church as we are a two year old community growing out of an 100 year a old church!¹⁴ We are a new community growing out of the nurse log of church. And so the following image is offered as an icon of our becoming:

¹ This does not preclude any revelation of the past but it does understand that, no matter how precious, such ‘revelations’ are no more than the expression of one lived moment of religious ‘truth’, worthy of note, but never necessitating idolization.

² Their name is legion: ‘evil-doers’, liberals, conservatives, literalists, relativists et al.

³ This echoes the wise insight of Martin Buber who said the same of our relationship with God.

⁴ ‘Lived speech’ is the turn of phrase utilized by Martin Buber pointing to the dynamism of ‘I – Thou’ relationships.

⁵ Quoted in, Donald J. Moore, Martin Buber: The Prophet of Religious Secularism (Fordham Press) p. 134

6 This does not so much render theological discourse impossible at it grounds it as necessarily metaphorical!

⁷ ‘I – Thou’ is the title of Martin Buber’s most widely read work. ‘I – Thou’ refers to the dynamic, dialogic relationship of self to thou, that which is wholly other (god) beyond definition but decidedly inviting address. Our response to such a dialogic relationship is always imperfect (always becoming ‘I – It’) but such is not the expression of inevitable failure but, if I may be playful, another ‘topic’ of conversation. The work of Buber deserves to be reconsidered, especially in our time of embittered battles.

⁸ Conversation comes from the Latin word ‘conversatio’ meaning ‘the act of living with’.

9 In Celtic spirituality, ‘thin places’ are those locations in which the separation between the sacred and the profane ‘thins’ becoming the ‘locale’ where heaven and earth ‘kiss’.

¹º By liturgical I am referring to the public, common work of all- a work which transcends and resists the diminishment of categorization.

¹¹ The presence of what Martin Buber called ‘I – It’ relationships is often revealed by the nature of our language- the predominance of he/she or they/them and the endless fascination with and description of the moral foibles and stupidity of their actions. It goes without saying that the moral high ground of incisive insight is almost always held by the narrator of the fool’s tale! Well, at least we know who thinks they are in charge! One final note, it is absolutely crucial to realize that we will never avoid ‘I – It’ relationships because our responses are necessarily imperfect. As said in footnote #7, this is not really ‘failure’ to be avoided (as if we could!) but an invitation to further address!

¹² Objectification is most obvious and expected in the defining violence of domination and control expressed in the usual considerations of race, gender, national or corporate interests. However, because it so easily escapes notice, one of the most troublesome relational examples of such controlling definition is the comment of woman who said of her husband of many years that she knew everything about him. I am not sure who I felt more sorry for: him for being so confined by the assumptions of another (most especially a ‘loved’ one), her for being so constrained by the necessity of her own assumptions or both for being reduced to so shallow an existence wherein the colours of life’s spectrum were merely shades of grey. It is of further interest to note that in terms of matters of faith, this person was strongly influenced by a fundamentalist spirit and tempted by literalist expressions.

¹³ ‘Raca’ is an Aramaic word meaning ‘fool’ and as such is meant to be utterly dismissive (see Matthew 5:21-24). Of course, we all know that such words are found in all languages, having similar meanings. How many words can you discern in your own discourse? In the space of five seconds I came up with seven that are occasionally expressed in my speech and more often define my thought!

¹⁴ It is has been suggested that the nurse tree is an apt metaphor for the church as a whole in relation to fresh expressions of the spirit.

January 29, 2010

To PreviousTopic

019

Community Spirit

Community is that which names those bound by ties of mutual relationship and the complex dynamic of shared personal living. Communities are those relational networks birthed and bounded by some or all of the contexts of geography, genetics or common interest. Community is a relational paradox in that it is both player and play, forming and formed by those involved. As such, community transcends yet includes each and all. There is always more going on than meets the eye.

That which is ‘more’ is most expressive of the spirit of community- its hopes and dreams but also its fears and anxieties. As with the wind, we see it not, but we feel its effects; we do not control it but we work with it. Community spirit is elusive but real, defined by no one yet responsive to each and all. The spirit of community calls us to a creative engagement with life’s chaotic promise. Of course, as we all know, the choices made in the face of the spirit’s call are not always life giving. We can, and god knows we have, chosen our worst nightmare, a nightmare often in the guise of promised life!

So much of what passes for ‘church’ is but the gathering of a crowd. So much of what passes as ‘mission and ministry’ is but the organization and maintenance of the crowd. We are called to something different, something which requires a commitment to honesty and humility, and less hubris. The presence of the holy one is not dependent on the gathering to invoke the sacred, rather, the vocation of the gathering is to attend to the sacred in its midst! The sacred calls us, we do not call it! In other words, ‘church’ is not about calling the crowds so much as it is deeply attending to the call of communion.

At the heart of communion is community which seeks more to address than to express.³ Community is grounded in the address of the ‘wholly other’ (god and creation, neighbour and self) rather than expressing ‘holy definitions’ of the other. This is the fundamental meaning of sacred transcendence: love which respects and honours the other by refusing the demanding, determining ‘deafness’ of definition. Community is the calling of all to a place of ‘lived speech’⁴ in a world of deafness- a place of mutual mission in the face of the muted meaning of the crowd.

Francis of Assisi once said that we are ‘to proclaim the gospel always and if necessary use words’.

This suggests that the ‘good news’ we proclaim is primarily concerned with the manner of our living as opposed to intellectual assent or confessional conformity. As the gospel of Jesus is a path and a practice which honours and expresses the lively movement of the spirit deep within the fabric of creation, so to, as ‘the art of living with’, conversation is concerned more with attending to the spirit’s movement rather than filling space with words. As an ‘art’, conversation is the practice of language and listening, of honouring the space of silence and place of other’s voice. It is a liturgical work¹º of gathering, sitting with, attending to the spirit’s presence in word and wonder, table and task, and prayer and process. It is formal and playful, intentional and incidental, demanding and delightful - responsive to the spirit’s leading in the dance of life.

Conversation is a relational art- the relational art of community honouring the holiness of the wholly other. It resists the insidious movement within creation and within any communal gathering to reduce others to ‘objects’ of concern, conjecture or conversion. To objectify is to reduce others to the status of ‘it’¹¹- the defined, determined objects of our control, a control often hidden behind the pretence of pastoral care and love.¹² To honour the other is to commit to the mutuality of mystery, whereby we address one another as ultimately unknown and yet opening ourselves to their presence. In the face of mystery, openness is that deep listening which elicits the spirit’s elusive creative presence. Opening to awareness, not grasping after knowledge is the ultimate expression of humanity’s promise. Despite best intentions, harm is always done when father knows best! If truth be told, we would all be better off if father realized he knew less!

To Next Topic