Canadian Mennonite
Volume 10, No. 09
May 1, 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.
Facing religious freedom issues head on
It’s winter and as I drive the 40 minutes down the snow-swept highway to the Mennonite Historical Society meeting in Hague, Sask., in early March, I wonder if I’ll make it on time.
I find the gymnasium where the meeting is being held and settle in at the back where I can hear Bill Janzen, the director of the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Ottawa office, speak on religious freedom among the Mennonites, Hutterites and Doukhobors. Of course, being that this is a meeting of an historical society, his talk centres on what religious freedoms these groups insisted on when they first settled on the prairies many years ago.
Freedoms such as being granted conscientious objector (CO) status, having the chance to teach their children in their own schools, and being exempted from a military tax, were all important back then. But all this talk of exemption from war doesn’t really impact my generation. I know war is wrong. And I learned in my Mennonite history class what the Mennonites did to maintain religious purity in their communities, but that’s not really why I’ve come today.
I want to know how much freedom of religious expression the federal government will allow now? Religious family arbitration is not allowed, but wearing a kirpan is. And will religious freedoms be curtailed in the future?
As it turns out, I’m not the only person wondering about the future of religious freedom in Canada. After he finishes speaking, it’s afternoon and lunch is on the way, but Janzen, a much-loved native of Hague, is given some time to answer questions from the crowd.
“Are these privileges still in effect?” one man asks.
Janzen explains that in the early 1980s, when the Charter of Rights was being drafted, MCC asked that the “conscientious objection to the taking of human life” be protected. The justice minister at the time later told MCC that “the courts would interpret the provision for freedom of conscience,” Janzen explained.
“I’m confident that the court would rule in favour of human rights,” explained Janzen of the current state of affairs.
After the short Q&A session, we sit down for an interview and I prepare to pelt him with hard questions.
How should the Mennonite Church act to preserve religious freedom? Careful with his words, Janzen answers, “We don’t do enough to challenge the status quo…. We should watch for [areas] where we need to speak up.”
I’ve felt the same way at times—wanting to speak up. But I hesitate to add my moniker on a letter to the local editor. If I’m going to stick out my neck like this, it’d be nice if someone would stand with me. It’s easier to hide behind that “quiet-in-the-land” theology.
Janzen reaches back to put the issue into historical perspective. In the 1960s, he recalls, there was an increase and acceptance of secular thought. It was assumed back then that religion had lost its strength. But today, if anything, the practice of religiosity is on the rise. “I wish we could work more for allowing all religions into the public arena, rather than pressuring that arena to be secular,” he adds.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it seems, would agree. He argues in a Faith Today article that separation of church and state “does not mean that faith has no place…in the public square,” but that the state has no right to meddle in religious practice.
So do Mennonites have more religious freedoms now than in the past?
Janzen points out the shift in thinking that has pulled respect away from Christianity as the dominant religion in Canada. Decisions to take the Lord’s Prayer out of schools, to endorse Sunday shopping, and to challenge the assumption that Christian holidays and expressions are now not automatically acceptable or politically correct, all reflect an increasing secularism.
Janzen does not see this as a loss of religious freedom, but rather a loss of support for the Christian way of doing things. “We must recognize that our society is now multicultural and multi-religious,” he points out.
The rise of human rights issues has also played a hand in this, argues Janzen. “There is now more freedom to be non-religious,” he explains. Sometime down the road, society may need to pick which forms of religion will be protected, he concedes.
On the drive home, I ponder these things and try to steer through the snow squall enveloping the city. I know these are issues I must face as a Christian. It is scary to think that Christianity has less influence in Canadian culture than the past. It would be easy to just pretend things were different. But Mennonites typically have faced these issues head-on.
Are we making a real difference?
My daughter participated in a 30-hour fast sponsored by her school, Westgate Mennonite Collegiate, and supported by Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). The students did role playing, heard speakers, prayed for the hungry, and initiated a fundraising project to help people gain access to clean water.
After the celebratory “breaking the fast” meal she talked quite animatedly about her experience. She had an interesting question, “How much of a difference do all the organizations like MCC actually make for world hunger?”
It was a fair question, given that they had heard that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger. Do these organizations make a difference?
For those who directly receive help, the answer would be a definite yes. But far more substantial change happens when governments change policies; when national economies grow (or shrink); or when funds are allocated to education and development, rather than to military purposes.
Organizations like MCC and churches like Mennonite Church Canada have a limited amount of impact in these big picture issues. And yet the call from God remains for us to be “God’s people now” in the complex contexts of economics and politics, as well as in grassroots poverty-alleviating initiatives.
My daughter’s excellent question provided me with another opportunity to think about lifestyle issues and what the organizations I support actually do. Doing everything may not be possible, but doing something—or a lot of somethings—to “make a difference” is certainly what we are called to.
Reader has fond memories of Theodore
I would like to respond to Brent Guenther’s March 20 article, “What’s to do in Theodore?” on page 15.
Yes, I know about Theodore! I grew up near Drake, Sask., which is approximately an hour-and-a-half drive west of Theodore.
I am now retired, living in Leamington, Ont., after having farmed with my husband in Harrow, Ont., for a number of years. We have children living in Winnipeg and near Edmonton, so we drive out west up to three times a year and drive right by Theodore in the process!
I also had a girlfriend who grew up in Theodore. We went to Canadian Mennonite Bible College together and later she taught school on a Hopi Indian reservation in Arizona. She was married later in life to a widower with a number of children and became a very devoted mother to them. Unfortunately, she passed away in middle age after a bout with cancer. Being a very dedicated Christian, there is no telling how many lives she touched and to what extent.
So one can never tell what influences have come out of a small, seemingly insignificant prairie town like Theodore! Thanks for bringing an awareness of what a little town can do!
Does CPT non-resistance represent today’s Mennonites?
For four months, a small band of obscure peacemakers held global attention. In a cynical, media-spun world, this is remarkable. So it should not be surprising that extreme views about the merits and demerits of “getting in the way” have come to the fore since Tom Fox’s murder and the later rescue of Harmeet Singh Sooden, James Loney and Norman Kember.
The ongoing media debate, where voices of warm support and angry antipathy of the work of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), call us as Mennonites—as one of CPT’s sponsoring communities—to theological reflection. We are being offered an opportunity to “give the reason for the hope that [we] have” (I Peter 3:15) as a Christian community rooted in a pacifist tradition. Are we up for the challenge?
One discussion that is highlighted for us by the CPT experience in Iraq is the one around policing and the legitimate force of the state as “God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). Our early Anabaptist forebears were able to resolve the non-resistant tension with this state of affairs, because they lived with a clear “two kingdom” reality—the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God. As disciples of Christ, the early Anabaptists established their loyalty to the kingdom of God, which they understood commanded them to live out an ethic of non-resistance.
Mennonites living in 2006 do not live with that worldview. The idea of two competing kingdoms, where loyalty to our version of God’s kingdom is a life and death choice, is incomprehensible.
The Canadian nation-state and democratic system expects that civil society is one of its partners. The church is now seen as only one part of civil society. Mennonites make up a much smaller subset of the church. On occasion, we have used this space to formally engage and critique our government. Nevertheless, we are integrally part of the system.
Our position as an Historic Peace Church, however, puts us in some tension with this state of affairs. Nation-states governed by the politics of self-interest make implicit demands on us that we have been largely oblivious to in the recent decades of affluence and relative security.
To my mind, CPT’s experience helpfully forces us to re-engage a very crucial question: “Do we as Mennonites still have a bedrock commitment to the non-resistant self-giving gospel of Jesus Christ?” If so, what is that commitment, and how will we live it out in this already violent 21st century?
MCEC season of discernment lacking
Around 1995, MC Eastern Canada held a public discussion at Conrad Grebel University College on homosexuality. Since then, I have felt a lack of similarly resourced and guided public discussions.
Such occasions would have allowed us further exposure to, and discussion with, Mennonite theologians such as David Schroeder, A. James Reimer and Tom Yoder Neufeld, or the respectful and empathetic resources of New Direction for Life Ministries (which I was introduced to at that initial event). Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary New Testament scholar Willard M. Swartley has also since offered us a thorough overall study of this topic and a serious attempt to address the pastoral role of the church in his book Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment.
When scholarly resources and thoughtful comments are combined with prayer, humility and biblical guidance, Spirit-guided discernment can be anticipated. This was my expectation when MC Eastern Canada organized a talk by Tony and Peggy Campolo on homosexuality last October (“Is the homosexual my neighbour?” Canadian Mennonite, Nov. 14, 2005).
With Peggy Campolo’s heart-rending stories, his oratory and vast social experience, they appealed to our sense of Christian justice and respect for marginalized and oft-rejected members of society and our churches.
However, while Tony repeatedly stated his belief that homosexual activity was outside of his understanding of God’s intent for human sexuality (especially referring to Romans 1), he neglected to refer to Jesus’ explicit affirmation of the Genesis account of God’s created intention for human sexual relationships and marriage. They noted the absence of the term “homosexual” or explicit reference to that practice in the gospels. I believe that there are many practices that we accept as contrary to God’s revealed intent for humanity, which are not mentioned in the gospels or Scripture. If there are related explicit instructions, as in this topic, then we must take those seriously in coming to conclusions about the unmentioned situations. I think that the very strong affirmation in Genesis 1 and 2, and by Jesus for monogamous marriage and exclusive sexual relationships, are essential guidelines in this discussion.
Although I have been an avid fan of Tony Campolo and agree with his conclusions on this topic, I was disappointed in his poor biblical arguments and his strong appeal to the “tradition of the fathers.” We would have gained much more by hearing our Mennonite theologians teach.
Speaking generally, the fact that some Christians rationalize—like Moses did regarding divorce—that committed homosexual unions are much better than promiscuity, does not make either situation good. As members of Christ’s body, we have committed ourselves to helping each other live by God’s good intentions for humanity.
Friesens has long history of social commitment
I was delighted to read that the tradition of Christian social responsibility continues at Friesens Corporation (“Corporate executive exemplifies business, faith, community life,” Canadian Mennonite, April 3, page 5).
Some years ago I was part of the founding of Child Abuse Research and Education (CARE). We needed a benevolent publisher/warehouse facility/shipper for what later became a successful program of child abuse prevention in many countries around the globe. Friesens quietly and efficiently helped us over the many years.
Thanks for highlighting their leadership and continued commitment to social responsibility.
Family Ties
A way out
In a recent radio interview, environmentalist David Suzuki spoke of the racism and internment experienced by his Japanese Canadian family during World War II. As a result, he developed empathy and a passion to fight for those who are victims of discrimination. He also witnessed how the events marked his father, whose land and livelihood were stripped from him. As he observed his father’s struggle, he concluded that he would not allow anger to consume and destroy him, the way it had his father. This action freed him from being stuck in a life-stance as a victim, in spite of the harm done to him and his family.
In our societies, churches and families, we see this human tendency to slide into, and get stuck in, the position of being a victim. Feeding our hurt and anger keeps it alive. “If he would only apologize…” we say. Or, “If she would just admit she was wrong.” Brooding over our wounds and the harm done to us gives us a kind of power, a way to redress the disempowerment we experienced in the wounding. Such a position can also have retaliation as its goal—hurting the other person in response to the hurt we have known. Unfortunately, that focus often keeps us and the other person stuck in the pains of the past, and in our roles of victim and oppressor.
I remember an occasion when I was sitting in church waiting for worship to begin when I was overwhelmed with hurt. Someone who had injured me was sitting nearby and feelings of distress and misery rolled over me like powerful waves. Thankfully a loved one was sitting beside me, and I asked, “Will you just hold my hand for a moment? I’m feeling rotten.” My companion wordlessly took my hand and quietly held it. That little connection to life, love and warmth pulled me from the depths and calmed me. Afterwards I vowed, “I will never let myself be so trapped in the role of a victim again.”
I have, of course, not always been true to the vow I made. What the experience and similar occasions afterwards have taught me is that I have a choice about how I respond and that God will help me choose well. With God’s grace I am learning to be open to the healing and compassion God makes available to me, and to the person with whom I am struggling.
Theologian Miroslav Volf writes compellingly of the cross where God, in the form of Jesus, embodies all the victims of the world—those who suffer innocently at the hands of others. Simultaneously, God meets all the wrongdoers of the world by responding to sin, which we all possess, with forgiveness. In that act of self-giving love, God transforms the relationship between victims and wrongdoers, and models how we can release the hurts that bind us. In this Easter season, may we open ourselves to the transformative power God so generously provides.
God, money and me
Modelling generosity
A recent study of toddlers suggests that kindness towards others starts early in life. Psychology researcher Felix Warneken’s simple experiments remind me of the contrast between the way God made us and the way our world leads us. Warneken did a series of little tasks in front of toddlers. He hung towels with clothespins and stacked books. Whenever he “accidentally” dropped pins or knocked over books, each of the 24 toddlers in his study quickly offered help. He never asked for assistance or said thank you, to avoid encouraging their actions.
Helpfulness—or altruism—requires the ability to understand other people’s goals and what Warneken calls “pro-social motivation,” a desire to be part of their community. Unfortunately, the overwhelming weight of the messages that children receive in our North American society run directly counter to our inborn desire to contribute.
Children in the U.S. are now taking in an average of 8.5 hours a day of screen time—television, computers, video games, “instructional videos” at school that include commercials promoting fast food sponsors, and messages on cell phones, author Nathan Dungan says. The children are being bombarded with as many as 3,000 advertising messages a day, messages screaming out “spend!” and “It’s all about me.” Dungan believes Christians should be worried about this, as the people who tell the stories define the culture. “The economic, social and spiritual implications of the tsunami of spending messages are incomprehensible,” he says.
How can we respond? Part of the answer lies in understanding, as Jesus did, the importance of telling stories. The church can make a difference by holding up alternative views that speak to the way God intends us to think and live. Research on trends in giving patterns shows that appeals to institutional loyalty aren’t relevant to younger generations. Relationships are key.
People need to hear alternatives to our society’s hyper-consumption and overspending, alternatives that include sharing and saving. They need to hear the stories of peers, parents and neighbours, for the sake of their spiritual growth. Generating support as people respond joyfully is a helpful byproduct.
When we look to Scripture for examples of modelling, King David’s example in I Chronicles 29 stands out. David donated his fortune for building a temple, then put out the challenge, “And now, what about you? Who among you is ready and willing to join in the giving?” Because David acted before asking, leading by example, the response was great. “And the people were full of a sense of celebration—all that giving! And all given willingly, freely” (from Eugene Peterson’s The Message).
A poll done in the U.S. following the 2004 national election asked about the top values crisis facing Americans. The response: greed and materialism. Modelling generosity, and the living-within-your-means required for people to have room to be generous, may be one of the least recognized missional challenges of this decade.
But people are hungry for lifestyle examples that don’t come from advertisers. Testimonies, money autobiographies and group studies are helpful tools to show us a better way.