Canadian Mennonite
Volume 10, No. 10
May 15, 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.
Making peace in our church and world
When we read the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, do we all approach it with the same assumptions? Do we believe that God’s good creation is being redeemed from the fall as we follow Christ? Or are we convinced that the world is irredeemable, that we cannot bring peace in the church and the world?
One of the intentions of our Confession is to “build a foundation for unity within and among churches.” Article 22 asserts, “Although God created a peaceable world, humanity chose the way of unrighteousness and violence…yet the vision of peace and justice did not die.”
I remember my surprise when reading John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus for the first time in the mid-1970s. My early experience of Christianity had been framed by the metaphors of war, division and restriction. Conflict among Christians was solvable by separation and division. Starting an independent church or mission agency, rather than working together with a denomination, avoided conflict. For the individual believer, the solution to conflict was a private personal relationship with Christ. This personal possession of the believer could then be insulated from the discipline of one’s peers. These ideas still undergird much of popular Christian theology in North America.
Yoder introduced a Jesus who taught a gospel of peace—not the peace created by the conqueror or by the rule of empire, but a way of living together in the church and the world marked by reconciliation and peacemaking. The faith community was called to practise a lifestyle that was a foretaste of the future reign of God.
Creating our Confession was the task of the whole Mennonite church, although it was delegated to a smaller group to complete. It was adopted at the delegate sessions at Wichita, Kan., July 25 to 30, 1995. The approval process reflected the teaching about the church embedded in the Confession. “We participate in the church’s task of interpreting the Bible…. Insights and understandings which we bring to the interpretation of Scripture are to be tested in the faith community” (Article 4).
The approval process for much popular theology is based on the competition model. Christian writers compete for sales in the Christian marketplace. Increased sales are an indication of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the market is no guarantee of faithfulness to Scripture. Peacemaking is not as popular as spiritual warfare in a society comfortable with competition and strife.
Our Confession teaches that the story of the Garden of Eden, coupled with the story of Jesus in the gospels, trumps the story of Cain and Abel. War and conflict are subject to the gospel of peace and reconciliation. The church is where peace and reconciliation first become evident. “Indeed, [the church’s] mission is to reconcile differing groups, creating one new humanity and providing a preview of that day when all the nations shall stream to the mountain of the Lord and be at peace” (Article 10).
“The church is a variety of assemblies which meet regularly…. This diversity in unity evokes gratitude to God and appreciation for one another…. The local congregation seeks the counsel of the wider church in important matters of faith and life…. Authority and responsibility are delegated by common and voluntary agreement, so that the churches hold each other accountable to Christ and to one another on all levels of church life” (Article 16).
We have a rich, challenging and fruitful doctrine of the church. “We believe that the church is called to live now according to the model of the future reign of God. Thus we are given a foretaste of the kingdom that God will one day establish in full. The church is to be a spiritual, social and economic reality…” (Article 24).
Our church is expected to be physically present in the world—a model of the world that is to come. One currently popular model of the church divides it in two. One part is the local congregation, and the other part is the “church universal,” whose members are only known to God “who knows all hearts.” The “church universal” has no physical presence in the world; it is purely a “spiritual” body. This allows independent churches and mission agencies to follow their own wisdom, subject only to the discipline of the marketplace and to God.
In contrast, our church—in all its dimensions—is called to be accountable: to love our neighbour as ourselves in the here and now. As Article 22 teaches us, “Led by the Spirit, and beginning in the church, we witness to all people that violence is not the will of God.” A violent world needs us. Let us make peace not only in our church but also in our world.
Sharing has place in Christian worship
In his InConversation article, “Thank you for sharing,” (Canadian Mennonite, April 3, page 10), Arthur Paul Boers bemoans the practice of personal sharing in worship. Further, he suggests that the Bible does not directly address this issue because, in his view, it represents a recent and alien development that threatens to take over our faith tradition.
Far from an innovation, sharing within worship goes at least as far back as the Psalms and their emergence in ancient Israel. While Boers draws on Paul to support his argument, the Psalter points in another direction.
The sharing elements Boers cautions against provide the bread and butter of the Psalms, which frequently clamour for healing from medical ailments (Psalms 6, 41), and one would be hard-pressed to find more one-sided explanations of conflictive situations than Psalm 109.
If one should avoid sharing “ethically questionable decisions” in worship, what do we make of the king’s thanksgiving for victory in battle (Psalm 18)? Or if luxuries are out of bounds, what do we do with Psalm 72 (a common lectionary reading during Advent)?
An important function of sharing, and even prayer, in the Psalter was precisely to publicly expose a wrong (Psalm 55), particularly important for those with no other means of protest. The use of prayer to shame, embarrass or even intimidate someone into changing their conduct is not uncommon in the Psalter (Psalms 6, 28, 59).
Public acknowledgement of answered prayer prompts thanks, and this public witness is itself often the sacrifice being offered or the vow being fulfilled (Psalms 56, 116). Such moments frequently culminate in calls for onlookers to praise the Lord or shout for joy, and thus function to encourage and exhort (Psalms 27, 31).
I suspect a bigger problem than sharing is our routine division of life into public and private spheres. I believe this to be a truly recent innovation, and one that permeates Boers’ article. Stated succinctly, Boers seeks to privatize sharing for the sake of public worship; the Psalms, however, do the opposite, by placing sharing within public liturgical contexts. Psalm 55 provides a particularly striking example.
To sum up, I believe it is a mistake for Boers to pit sharing against the gospel in light of the biblical evidence in the Psalms. Rather, seeking and witnessing to God’s action in our lives—sharing—forms an appropriate and important part of Christian worship, and one with deep biblical roots.
MCC might suffer from union with World Vision
Regarding World Vision and Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) joining forces (“Metzger new director of World Vision church relations,” Canadian Mennonite, Jan. 23, page 30), I am in agreement with W. Loewen’s letter in the April 17 issue (“Partnering with World Vision not desirable,” page 14).
Some questions to consider:
• Who is trying to raise their image?
• If World Vision uses MCC’s name in their fundraising campaigns, will MCC suffer financially?
I believe MCC has a solid reputation worldwide and that it should not be put in jeopardy.
Mennonites unfairly targeting World Vision
Several letters over the past few issues have delighted in disparaging World Vision in comparison with Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) (in response to the Jan. 23 article, “Metzger new director of World Vision church relations,” page 30).
It is very small-minded for anyone to do that. World Vision is a highly effective organization that has great integrity—like MCC—in many of its activities. To purposely state negative innuendo because a Mennonite church member has chosen to work for the organization is shamefully weak.
World Vision is obviously a much larger organization than MCC. Because of its size, many delight in pointing out its failures. Just because they effectively generate many times more dollars out of the Mennonite community than does MCC is no reason to vent frustration upon the organization.
Instead, if you are so bothered by World Vision, why not give more to MCC? People give money to whatever organization is engaged in activities that express their concerns and passion for ministry. World Vision is one organization, just like MCC, that has captured the ideals, passion and ministry of a great many people. It should be applauded, not denigrated, for the highly effective work it does.
(With these two letters, we bring to an end the discussion of the relationship between World Vision and the Mennonite Church and MCC. Ed.)
Fragile ideals in a less-than-ideal world
This morning, while washing last night’s pots and pans, I mulled over the “CIM, conference prepare to part ways” article in Canadian Mennonite (Feb. 20, page 35).
I pondered issues around which, throughout our history, the conference, churches and families split apart—in this case, the issue of homosexuality. Should homosexually oriented individuals be accepted as full members in a church? Should these individuals, beyond being accepted as “full rights” members, be further allowed to hold office in any capacity and even provide leadership at various levels?
This is reality. Homosexual orientation is not, I believe, God’s ideal, as I understand the creation story in Genesis and other portions of Scripture referencing this issue. However, we are fallen from grace. We live in a “less-than-ideal” world.
God challenges us to live in this “less-than-ideal” world. Is there any ideal and pure way to deal with this issue? In its constitution, our conference has clearly shared the definition of the marriage relationship—that being between one man and one woman.
If this is the definition that is being questioned or threatened, we need—in order to be the conference—to uphold it and let churches choose whether or not they can agree with this statement of faith, and further, whether they can consider themselves members of the conference. The larger church family has chosen to struggle with this issue and feel the pain of having to make a statement. We will continue to struggle with this issue, and new and old issues, as long as we live and move and have our being.
The fragile ideals we hold, we hold in our fallen, less-than-ideal world. This, however, does not excuse us from continuing to hold ideals and follow the Bible as we understand it.
I affirm Mennonite Church Alberta struggling with the issues of life within and around the church, and acknowledging our humanity and holding ideals. “Commit your way to God and he will direct your path” (Proverbs 3:6).
Mortgage ad not deserving of credit
I was disappointed by the Mennonite Savings and Credit Union (MSCU) advertisement in the April 17 issue of Canadian Mennonite (page 14).
In bold letters, it says, “Get the credit you deserve,” with regards to opening a mortgage. I am a member of MSCU because of how funds are used to assist people, not to get something that I supposedly deserve. Does MSCU feel some people deserve more than others? According to what criteria? Having enough money to purchase a house?
Aren’t Christians called to question the message of entitlement much of our surrounding culture preaches?
Articles spell out meaning of ‘discipleship’
Re: April 17 issue.
Thank you for another inspiring Canadian Mennonite. There are two—actually more than two—articles that are a great fit.
“What are we about?” by Outside the box columnist Phil Wagler on page 12 cuts right through the churchy kinds of definitions and answers the question by quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Christianity without discipleship is Christianity without Christ.”
And Harry Huebner’s InConversation piece on page 11, “Understanding gratitude: a defence of CPT,” spells out for us in lucid language that even a thoughtful non-Christian could understand—a totally different way of understanding the “real world.” CPT operates under a very different set of assumptions than conventional wisdom.
I will find both of these contributions to be very useful in helping unbelievers, and even believers, to understand what it means to be a Christian. Putting your life on the line—discipleship—is “what we are about.”
New Order voice
Low-tech for the soul
I’ve gone to the washroom several times in the past couple of days—big jobs and little jobs—and technically haven’t flushed once. I’m experimenting with new “waste management” techniques.
I discovered a new manual flushing system, with three easy steps:
• Start the laundry machine in the basement;
• Capture the wash and rinse water in buckets; and,
• Lug the buckets upstairs to the washroom and dump half a pail in the bowl to complete the flush.
I’ll admit, it’s a crude grey-water-reclamation scheme, but it works. And I get a little exercise along the way. I’m even thinking of doing some amateur plumbing—with valves and hoses—to redirect sink and shower water into a holding tank.
What does this have to do with my theology? Well, a couple of things. The first is easy. My faith calls me to be a good steward of the environment. Our footprint is too big on this planet, and I want to conserve as much as I can.
The second reason I’m using less water is far more subtle. I’m beginning to take back some of the life I’ve given over to machines. Sure, mechanical and electronic conveniences save time, but they also have an uncanny way of skewing our habits and values.
For example, once we set down the guitar and embrace stereos, it’s a short step to playing CDs in church and worshipping through technology. We’ve introduced video monitors that guide our worship and computer-based “hymnals” that display digitized songs on an overhead screen that we sing along with. This interaction is eerie; it’s not tangible, but virtual.
These innovations disconnect us, introduce simulated realities and interrupt social encounters. This distancing allows for greater abuses, especially of the environment—hence it’s grounding to lug and dump water down the toilet.
Technology reinforces that vaguely dopey feeling I get when I walk into a mall or superstore. Everything is too easy, all slightly removed.
“Commodities [the fruits of technology] by their very structure tend to lull and dull our senses and talents,” writes Albert Borgmann in his book Power Failure: Christianity in the Culture of Technology (Brazos Press, 2003). Borgmann suggests that we turn to “focal” things and practices to re-ground ourselves in daily life and community. Things like good books, musical instruments, athletic equipment, art and nature; practices like dining, running, fishing, gardening and reciting poetry. These “provoke and engage our physical and moral gifts,” and introduce an alternative reality to a machine-driven culture.
I would add lugging water to his list of reconnecting practices. As more and more buildings, including churches, are fitted with motion-activated faucets, toilets and urinals (what’s next, motion-activated baptism?), I crave that which is manual. It feels old fashioned of me to suggest this, but for the vitality of our souls and community we need to rely less on the efficiencies of mechanization.
As Mennonites, we have among us a deep suspicion of “worldly” innovation and technology, and place a high value on the plain invigorating things of everyday life in community.
My mother-in-law used to save water from the washing machine and use it to water her garden around the farmhouse. Now I’m lugging water upstairs to turn grey water black. It’s an exercise that pulls me closer, reconnects me with the Spirit. Besides, look at Jesus, did he ever flush a toilet? I don’t think so.
Outside the box
At pleasure’s breaking point
Have you ever watched a television commercial and been aghast at the product’s ludicrous claims?
A few years ago a car was pitched with the claim it could “save your soul.” An inanimate, gas-guzzling piece of welded technology without a flitter of feeling can save my soul? Okay, let’s assume it’s a metaphor. The car, of course, can’t save your soul, but driving it can help you recover your soul—you know, recapture your groove with its smooth ride and cute cup holders. But if I need a car to reignite my “mojo,” then I’m really stuck in a rut and it leaves much of the vehicularly-deprived world lost without hope.
All these wild claims being made for things these days reveal a deep-seated ache in the soul of the North American biped. People are dying. Unlike other places in the world, where bombs or diseases are a constant threat (that most of us see only between commercials), people in our communities are dying a death by chocolate. Meaninglessness has swept the land and our problem is not with pain but with pleasure.
Ravi Zacharias puts it this way, “It is not pain that has driven the West into emptiness; it has been the drowning of meaning in the oceans of our pleasures.”
What makes this problem of pleasure so damning is that it is teasingly seductive. Solomon warned of entering the red light district for it is “a highway to the grave” (Proverbs 7:27), yet every day we in the West—Christians included—are found adulterating ourselves in the lap of pleasure.
We’ve got it all, been given it all, expect it all, and, ironically, in our lack of want, have no sense of need. Our lives are swollen with myriad trivial pursuits and possessions while we’re incapable of investing in the very things we long for most—lasting relationships and having a clue of what to do with our lives.
I believe the long-term fallout of all this pleasurable meaninglessness will be good news! Once we realize that no car, beer, iPod, new spouse or lifestyle, or extreme adventure can save our souls, then we’ll be right where God wants us—at the breaking point. And so, church, now is the time to begin living, serving and dreaming differently.
Can we once again demonstrate to a culture drowning in pleasure that there is nothing better than being the suffering servants of Jesus? Our current message to a me-first and meaning-starved generation—that the height of the adventure of following Jesus is what happens on Sunday mornings, so long as I like it and it’s kept to an hour—sounds as eerily hollow as many of the sanctuaries we gather in.
Jesus said he came to give life to the full (John 10:10). That sounds thirst-quenching, but where is this full life among his people? Our lives, riddled with the pleasure we were told to pursue, are proving meaningless and we groan beneath the weight of our abundance and bemoan the shallowness and pettiness of “churchianity.” We who know him who does save the soul must now embrace the possibilities and challenges of this era with more than mere slogans.