Canadian Mennonite
Volume 10, No. 07
April 3, 2006
Letters
This section is a forum for discussion and discernment. Letters express the opinion of the writer only, not necessarily the position of Canadian Mennonite, the five area churches or Mennonite Church Canada. Letters should address issues rather than criticizing individuals and include contact information. We will send copies of letters referring to other parties to them to provide an opportunity to respond in a future issue if their views have not already been printed in an earlier letter.
Please send letters to be considered for publication to letters@canadianmennonite.org or to Canadian Mennonite, 490 Dutton Drive, Unit C5, Waterloo, ON, N2L 6H7, “Attn: Letter to the Editor.” Letters may be edited for length, style and adherence to editorial guidelines.
Thank you for sharing
People around the Great Lakes know that zebra mussels came from overseas and wreak ecological havoc. These foreign invaders do not have natural predators here and have become pests, upsetting balances and displacing native species.
“Sharing” is a non-native invader that distorts worship and becomes impossible to dislodge. Our Mennonite practice of it is rooted in Wednesday prayer meetings. As those services dwindled, personal revelations and prayer requests migrated to Sunday.
It is alarming to hear—as I often do—that people’s favourite part of worship is the lifting of joys and concerns. Indeed, churches often skip over, shorten or omit other parts of their services when sharing goes “too long.” We put time limits on duly designated leaders who carefully prepare prayers and sermons, but hesitate to restrict people who speak “off the cuff.”
This invasive worship newcomer outranks, diminishes, and even displaces praising God, singing hymns, listening to God’s Word proclaimed and preached, offering our gifts to God, or receiving God’s blessings. It is treated as the most important part of worship. People leave remembering more about private details and impressions of others’ lives than about the gospel that was preached.
The No. 1 prayer request is for medical ailments, usually someone beyond the congregation and often explained in needlessly graphic and explicit detail.
Or people give one-sided explanations of their position in a conflict or their interpretation of someone else’s problems. Sometimes the people named are present, other times not; either way, it is problematic.
Particularly baffling is when people make information public that ought to be private. Others share ethically questionable decisions. Somehow sharing sanctifies it. People speak of buying luxuries. Or boast of exotic vacations. Or announce decisions about breaking up or blending their family.
Sharing is not about giving a voice to everyone: A few share a lot and most speak seldom or not at all. This is not true sharing, but the microphone monopoly of a minority.
After a particularly embarrassing sharing time, a friend joked about its “Jerry Springer” quality. The tell-all atmosphere of talk show television shapes an entire generation’s view of worship. The result is that we become overly focused on individual problems, bringing those to centre stage, rather than placing our lives in the context of God’s work.
As personal sharing is relatively new to Christian worship—and even more recent for Mennonites—it is not something the Bible directly addresses. The closest piece of scriptural counsel I can find comes from Paul in I Corinthians 14. He writes: “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” It is appropriate that people might be inspired to bring something to the gathering of the body.
But then he suggests elements of discernment, something sorely lacking in how we share. First, Paul says: “Let all things be done for building up,” and later notes that prophecies are “so that all may learn and all be encouraged.” In other words, what is lifted up should encourage and empower everyone.
Second, Paul suggests that, in the case of tongue-speaking, “let there be only two or at most three….” Could we not suggest such parameters with sharing?
Third, Paul insists that tongues should be interpreted and if there is no interpreter then “let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God.” Sometimes it is better to hold one’s tongue.
Fourth, all prophecies are to be tested: “and let the others weigh what is said.” Church leaders have the right —even the responsibility—to critique and exercise discernment over what is spoken in church. When people misuse sharing, they should be corrected for abusing worship, “for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.”
As a former pastor, I take seriously people’s need to be heard and to receive support and prayer.
First, I propose that we remind people that gossip is not holy just because we call it a prayer concern.
Second, it is good for people to have supportive prayers. But there are many ways to do this. Brief requests during worship can be significant. Or churches could make people and space available, so that those who need prayer can meet with others and be prayed for in private.
But private and personal needs should not dominate the priority of public worship. As William Orr and James Arthur Walther write in their commentary on I Corinthians 14: “The life of the church is more important than the religious development or expression of a single person.”
Transcending disagreements needed in B.C. debate
I read with mixed emotions the WiderChurch article “Membership baggage, homosexuality fuel ‘provincially active only’ desires” on page 19 of the Jan. 23 issue. I feel at times that I am a prisoner held captive by our provincial community whose majority advocates for supporting a “provincially active only” concept because of a democratic decision made several years ago.
We may not have arrived at this place if we could have considered the guidelines expressed under Article 16 of our Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective and the commentary. I continue to struggle as I learn what it is to be an individual living in community.
The sections of the article on “membership baggage” and “a deeper disillusionment” leave me again wondering why more voices were not consulted—or quoted—within the B.C. community to determine other sides of the discussion. The listening meetings that were hosted by MC B.C. were helpful, as each community was able to speak to the subjects that were on the table, and they revealed we do not have consensus. I respect that the committee needs to begin its work, but being a bit more investigative could bring a balance to dialogue, instead of them offering their ideas before the whole body is heard or quoted.
It is good to read that the journey we will embark on is to apply “theological rigour” to the questions that the article brings to the table. My prayer goal is that we all line up with the idea expressed in the last sentence—“that the task is to find ways of working with one another that transcend our disagreements….”
It does beg the question of how we do listening and hearing so that we actually consider the interests of the other before our own. If we move forward, when we look back, whom will we have left behind?
Conservative militarism deserves critique
I was disappointed that the Feb. 6 Canadian Mennonite editorial entitled “New government’s agenda” failed to mention the Conservative government’s focus on aggressive militarism and deeper integration with the United States’ “security” agenda. Mennonites have a long, biblically based tradition of opposing militarism and war. We now live in an age of hyper-militarism and imperial wars waged by American leaders who say they are Christians. Because Stephen Harper plans to move Canada in a similar direction, I think a clear, faith-based critique by Canadian Mennonites of our new government’s military agenda is sorely needed.
World Vision bashing needs to stop
Congratulations, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), on your partnership endeavours with World Vision (Canadian Mennonite, Jan. 23, page 30). While Andre Pekovich has concerns about MCC’s association with World Vision, I have concerns about his letter (March 6, page 12) that perpetuates a much-loved Mennonite myth.
Along with a partner, I run a marketing/consulting agency that works extensively with World Vision in Canada, the U.S. and internationally. I’ve visited World Vision field projects in Africa, and I know the people that make World Vision tick. My wife and I have also spent three years with MCC in Egypt.
World Vision’s primary marketing focus—child sponsorship—reduces real issues to the impact on a single child, but its mandate is sustainable community-based transformational development. They simplify the issues to a level Canadians are willing to be engaged at—the impact of poverty, famine and disease on children. Their enormously successful fundraising efforts help all development organizations, including MCC.
Pekovich’s story of World Vision people standing beside a polished new Land Cruiser in their best suits to undertake a token act of food distribution does not surprise me; they were obviously working to impress thousands of rich western conference-going Mennonites! And it doesn’t take many trips on remote African “roads” to know that a Land Cruiser is no luxury in that part of the world.
This story, however, certainly does not say anything about World Vision’s development philosophy. Suggesting that World Vision’s overseas efforts utilize mainly ex-pat workers and do not generate results is wrong, as is the suggestion that World Vision field staff are not dedicated, do not wear khakis, and are not results-oriented.
The truth is that the aggressive media-based approach World Vision takes allows them to take on projects that smaller organizations like MCC simply can’t even contemplate.
I am not suggesting that MCC start running TV programs to raise funds. Mennonites should recognize and embrace the strong MCC brand, but they should also recognize and appreciate the efforts of World Vision.
World Vision appointment approved by Witness council
Re: “World Vision ‘brand’ not for Mennonites” letter, Canadian Mennonite, March 6, page 12.
I heartily agree with Mr. Pekovich in his concern that we uphold and live out the Anabaptist principles of “mutuality, respect, stewardship and faith.” Mennonite Church Canada Witness upholds and continually tests its activities against these principles and the understanding that God is at work reconciling and healing the world—that God’s church is the primary agent through which Christians act.
I want to reassure Mr. Pekovich and other readers that MC Canada’s Christian Witness Council tested Willard Metzger’s appointment to World Vision through a group discernment process as well as MC Canada’s Conflict of Interest Policy. The council’s discernment determined that Metzger’s appointment would not compromise the Anabaptist principles upon which Witness functions.
Moreover, we believe that such appointments represent opportunities for spreading Anabaptist values and principles beyond ourselves as we seek to live faithfully to the calling of our Lord Jesus. Our belief is upheld through the positive responses we have received for bringing Anabaptist values and principles to the wider ecumenical table through our membership at both the Canadian Council of Churches and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
We hope and trust that all MC Canada board and council members will carry their call to an Anabaptist understanding of the gospel, and their passion for MC Canada ministries and values, into their diverse workplaces.
MCC-World Vision partnership clarified
In the Jan. 23 edition of Canadian Mennonite there was a story that mentioned a growing partnership between World Vision Canada and Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). This deserves some clarification.
MCC Ontario has been running a successful program in which single women and mother-led families are supported in moving out of shelters and back into the community. The success is measured, in part, by the fact that almost all of the women—women who previously had returned repeatedly to the shelter—are now remaining housed in the community.
World Vision Canada, having recently reviewed its programs in Canada, has decided to focus its domestic work on child poverty issues, and additionally to do that work through partners that are active in effective programs on the ground.
After seeing our program, known as Circle of Friends, World Vision Canada asked us to partner with it by applying to become one of its “Partners to End Child Poverty.” We are in the midst of that process now and expect to enter a long-term partnership that allows MCC Ontario to lead and direct this work while receiving strong financial and organizational support from World Vision Canada.
While we understand that the two organizations are different, we see a strong joint opportunity to contribute to the wellbeing of women and children seeking to build stable and productive lives in our communities.
God, money and me
Is ‘stewardship’ a four-letter word?
It seems few people in the church get excited about stewardship these days. Preachers tend to roll their eyes when it’s time for the annual stewardship sermon, and parishioners tend to roll their eyes when they hear what the topic will be. The assumption is that stewardship will be a “guilt” topic, designed to pry more money out of unwilling pockets and into a starving church treasury.
And…oh yes, there has to be that mandatory mantra, that “stewardship is about much more than just money,” and the passing references to using our time responsibly, paying attention to the sustainability of God’s creation, and other noble sentiments. But the bottom line, whether stated or not, is always about money. Tithing. Is this really what stewardship is all about?
I have friends who have scrimped and saved all their working lives so that their children, once they are of age, may go to good universities through to a doctoral program without incurring any debt. I have other friends whose homes illustrate their hospitable nature: large diningroom tables, comfortable livingroom furnishings—easy and inviting places to visit. Other friends are sometimes hard to contact because they are so busy with committee meetings at church or at other community organizations.
These friends are expressing their values. A good education is important. Hospitality is important. Volunteering at church or for the good of the larger community is important. We hear a lot about “family values,” and we try to promote wholesome and faith-based values. But there is another meaning to “values” that also applies to each of these examples.
In some way, they are all tied to money. A good education costs a lot of money. Being hospitable involves the cost of a comfortable home and furnishings, as well as the cost of entertaining. Volunteering takes away from the time that a person might otherwise be working for gain. All of these costs are good, if held in balance.
There is nothing wrong with spending money on worthwhile values. In essence, that is what personal stewardship is all about. We identify the values we cherish, and work towards implementing those values. The first part is the most important: identifying our values. The rest follows naturally, without too much more thought.
If the word “stewardship” grates on your over-churched nerves, try ignoring it and focus instead on “discipleship.” What has God done for you lately, and how do you respond to God? How does your response reflect your personal values? How do you express your values? How are you a disciple?
This series of reflections on discipleship (stewardship) under the general theme of “God, money and me” has been prepared by the staff of Mennonite Foundation of Canada, and will run every other issue. We pray that God will add value to our words.
Family Ties
Speaking of death
“So, Mom, what do you want done with your remains?” my son asked. It’s not a typical question from a teenager to a parent, I know. He asked the question as we walked away from the vet where we had just completed the sad and necessary task of putting down our dog. Death—of a family member—was very much on our minds.
I was glad he’d asked the question. I think it’s important for families to talk openly about a variety of things, including tough stuff like death and medical interventions. I’ve also learned that individuals and cultural groups vary on their capacity to enter into these conversations. For example, in some cultures, the spoken word has a great deal of power. To speak of death is seen as a statement of causing or wanting the person to die. It is important to be aware of such dynamics.
On the other hand, open communication helps individuals navigate the precarious, holy terrain of medical crises and the end of life. Too many of us find ourselves in the position of facing these sensitive decisions only when they are excruciatingly present—just in front of our faces. The difficulty of the task is one reason we delay writing wills, arranging for a power of attorney, and communicating to family members our thoughts about extreme medical procedures. It forces us to confront our human frailty, the inexorable decline of our bodies, and the death that awaits us. Naming our hopes, fears and desires to our loved ones gives us strength for the ordeal, and knits us closer together.
As we move from the shadows of Lent into the bright joy of Easter, perhaps some energy could be given to considering these questions:
• How will my financial resources be distributed after I die?
• What medical procedures am I open to receiving? (This involves educating oneself to understand things like artificial nutrition, breathing apparatus, and life supports.)
• What preferences do I have for funeral arrangements and the disposal of my body?
• How would I like to be remembered?
• What final words or blessings might I bestow upon those I love?
Elders, given the wisdom they’ve acquired and their proximity to death, are encouraged to lead the way. Any family member can get the ball rolling, though.
Of course, we can have the conversations and think we’ve made arrangements and still be taken by surprise.
My aunt believed she clearly understood her parents’ intentions, and their desire for no extreme medical measures. When my grandfather suffered a heart attack, she called for the ambulance to transport him to the hospital. The ambulance attendant asked about resuscitation, and she replied, as she’d been coached by my grandfather, “Do not resuscitate.” She was quite astonished, and more than a little embarrassed, when my grandfather, conscious at that moment, said, “Yes! Do resuscitate!”
Such a measure was indeed necessary at that time of crisis, and was successful. Pap went on to live—in good harmony with my aunt—another five years.