Canadian Mennonite
Volume 11, No. 06
March 19, 2007
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.
Regehr clarifies use of ‘force’ statements
Thank you for your report on the panel at the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya, in which I was quoted as supporting the resort to force in extraordinary circumstances (“Project Ploughshares founder accepts international ‘force’ as last ditch option,” Feb. 5, page 14). Your readers should be aware that I was on the panel to elaborate on a statement on intervention approved by the World Council of Churches (WCC) Assembly in 2006, a statement that has the support of European Mennonites and Quaker groups that are members of the WCC.
The statement reads in part: “In calling on the international community to come to the aid of vulnerable people in extraordinary suffering and peril, the fellowship of churches is not prepared to say that it is never appropriate or never necessary to resort to the use of force for the protection of the vulnerable.… [T]he objective must be the welfare of people, especially those in situations of extreme vulnerability and who are utterly abandoned to the whims and prerogatives of their tormentors.… The resort to force is first and foremost the result of the failure to prevent what could have been prevented with appropriate foresight and actions, but having failed, and having acknowledged such failure, the world needs to do what it can to limit the burden and peril that is experienced by people as a consequence.”
I participated in drafting the statement, and at the assembly Mennonites and Quakers were actively engaged in the debate and, in the end, added their support to it. The context for the discussion was [as the article stated] the scandalous failure of the international community to come effectively to the aid of the people of Rwanda in the 1990s and the children of northern Uganda who, my fellow panelist—ambassador Bethuel Kiplagat of Kenya—pointed out, have been victims of the most heinous crimes for more than two decades.
In our own moments of crisis in Canada we all have the opportunity to dial 911 and can expect someone to respond. The people of Darfur and northern Uganda have been going to their phones to dial 911, only to find that the line is dead.
Students conscious of treatment of pastors
I would like to thank Gerald Gerbrandt (“Answering the call to church leadership formation,” Jan. 22, page 10) and Muriel Bechtel (“God’s work in progress,” Jan. 22, page 29) for their words about the relationship between congregations and pastors.
I agree with Gerbrandt that “our ‘crisis in leadership’…may really be a ‘crisis in membership,’” as so often our congregations, whether consciously or not, hold pastors to a much higher and harsher ethical standard than other members of our congregations.
I am studying at Canadian Mennonite University right now and can report one unforeseen consequence of these situations. When this kind of news reaches students currently attending Mennonite post-secondary institutions, including the next generation of pastors, it can cause students to change their minds about entering the ministry.
As congregations, we need to remember, as Bechtel writes, that “pastor and people are in ministry together,” and that the questionable treatment of pastors in some congregations today may have devastating effects for the future of the church. While pastors should not be treated any better than other members of the congregation, neither should they be treated any worse. Otherwise, there may not be a next generation of pastors.
We received a considerable number of letters responding to Jim Suderman’s Feb. 19 letter. Every one received by press time is printed below in shortened form. So as to not dominate the Letters section with this subject, I’m drawing responses on this subject to a close for a while. -Ed.
Fearful for gays, not of them
Re: “Church must catch up to government on gay rights,” Feb. 19, page 13.
The church must never catch up to the government. The church is governed by Christ and Christ alone, and is an alien colony on this Earth. Its principles are so far ahead of this country’s government that it is laughable for the church to catch up to an earthly government.
To quickly change one’s attitudes from the timeless precepts of Christ to the earthly flavour of the day seems foolish, as this flavour too will pass away. Anabaptist martyrs seemed to have very little concern for the legal and political realities as they chose to follow Christ, even unto death.
In response to Jim Suderman’s last point about fear, I must admit that, as part of a minority, I do fear. It is not a fear of the gay person, but for the gay person—just as I fear for all people who seek their fulfillment in the treasures and pleasures of this world. I fear that when the sick, guilt-ridden and disillusioned come to the organized church, they will only find voices of affirmation telling them that they are really all right and on the right road.
I fear that the good news of redemption from this world and its desires may never reach those whose lives have found nothing but emptiness in this world. I fear for the parents who will be tempted to abandon praying for their children.
I fear the reality of my own human weakness that seeks to be fulfilled by its desires, which, apart from the constant support, forgiveness, love and power of Jesus Christ, I could never resist.
I fear that, although God created us to be like him and that he provided the way through to his glorious, righteous, everlasting kingdom, this news will be drowned out by bold advocates of the glories of this present age.
Please, church, don’t close the road to Jesus. At the very least, continue to point hurting earthbound humanity to the Bible and to its Jesus. I am so thankful that someone did this for me.
Was gay rights letter tongue-in-cheek?
I read Jim Suderman’s letter, “Church must catch up to government on gay rights,” Feb. 19, page 13, several times to try to understand where he is coming from. I believe he must have written with “tongue in cheek” and did not mean to be taken too literally.
Did he really mean that anything our Canadian government passes is the final word on moral issues, with his reference to same-sex marriage? Surely, he must know numerous biblical teachings that instruct true believers in Christ to obey God rather than mere mortal man?
We do need to thank Suderman for giving us a prime example of what many people do with Scripture to support the lifestyle they want to live. With his addition to Galatians 3:27-28—“there is neither gay nor straight”—perhaps a new version of the Bible is coming out!
We need to read the whole Bible, Genesis to Revelation, carefully and prayerfully. It is a comfort to know that God loves us sinners and hates sin for what it does to us.
Bible, not government, the church’s proper guide
I write regarding Jim Suderman’s letter, “Church must catch up to government on gay rights,” Feb. 19, page 13.
While I do have a personal opinion on the topic, my comments are related to the rationale presented—namely, the church must follow the lead of the government. My understanding of Anabaptist history and my personal conviction lead me to believe that the church should take its cues from the Bible, church history and church counsel, rather than look to our government for leadership in issues of moral conduct—who we love, and how we relate to and how we accept one another.
I believe we are to honour those in authority, and respect and pray for our government, but to look to them for moral and spiritual leadership would be a major departure from our way of faith. Are we to “catch up” to the government on military issues? Or follow their leadership in loving our neighbours or enemies?
No. Let’s do what is right, be the people of God and if we are on the same side as the government on some issues, so be it. But let it be known we have come to our convictions by a faith process built on the authority of the Bible, not by following the secular government.
Christians called to higher standard
Re: “Church must catch up to government on gay rights,” Feb. 19, page 13.
The triumphal spirit of this letter saddens me greatly. To assume that, since the laws of the land have now been changed regarding gay marriage we are no longer under the authority of the Scriptures, suggests we do not understand which king we serve. While there has been much debate, rarely have we seen a good review of Scripture on this subject and I do not presume to provide such.
I do know clearly that loving our neighbour as ourselves—including homosexuals—does not require us to give them membership and ordination. It does require that we love them. When Christ allowed the woman to go free after being caught in adultery, he did say she was not to sin further.
As Anabaptist/Mennonites, we also share a heritage and a membership with a very broad world body that is far larger than our little Canadian body. Let us not get into the difficulty now facing the Anglicans, in which the little remaining western church body may be excommunicated from the now larger southern body.
As followers of Christ we are called to a much higher standard and need to learn to walk in his way; that way is narrow.
Church must not follow the lead of society
I would beg to differ with the view expressed by Jim Suderman’s “Church must catch up to government on gay rights” letter (Feb. 19, page 13). When the church follows the lead of society it has lost its God-given purpose and it becomes a case of the blind leading the blind into the pit. The church needs to discern when the decisions of civil authorities are contrary to the redemptive purposes of God and take a positive stand for the truth in humility and love. We do well to remember the trouble Lot got into because of his compromise with the socially accepted practices of Sodom.
Scripture doesn’t let opponents off the hook
In response to Jim Suderman’s Feb. 19 letter, “Church must catch up to government on gay rights” (page 13), I would like him to write and tell us what Scripture he uses to get around these verses—Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28. God will render to every man according to his deeds.
Personal feelings can cloud biblical truth
I feel most Mennonites across Canada and the U.S. disagree with Jim Suderman (“Church must catch up to government on gay rights,” Feb. 19, page 13). In Jude it says that “certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you; they are godless men who change the grace of God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus, our only sovereign and Lord.” Our obligation as church congregations is to share Jesus’ compassion and care for those that are hurting. We pray that they will realize that their lifestyle, which they have chosen, is wrong and does not adhere to biblical values as set forth by Jesus Christ and the Bible. My concern for these people is found in John 3:16. Finally, one can’t use personal feelings to change the Bible; otherwise, it becomes valueless and is no longer a standard for truth.
Stand by the Bible against government
Concerning Jim Suderman’s letter, “Church must catch up to government on gay rights,” in the Feb. 19 issue (page 13), Mennonites always stood by the Bible and not by the government if it is contrary to the Word of God. Where will it lead us if we give up more and more of the contents of the Bible? Homosexuality is considered an abomination by God (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, I Kings 14:24 and Romans 1:26-27).
Morality is from God and Scripture
In response to Jim Suderman’s “Church must catch up to government on gay rights” letter (Feb. 19, page 13), it is a totally foreign concept to me to accept such a statement. It is a fact of history that the Mennonite Church has taught that there are instances when we must “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Our discussions on morality should come from God and Scripture, and not from government or pressure groups. He quotes Galatians 3:27-28 to justify his position, but to me it is quite evident that the apostle does not want us to believe that baptism wipes out gender and nationality, but rather that God is not a “respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34), who welcomes into his family every person who repents and believes in Jesus. I strongly agree that we should love our neighbour; however, this does not mean that we must always approve of what our neighbour does.
Church and state are separate
It was with a great deal of concern that I read Jim Suderman’s letter, “Church must catch up to government on gay rights,” Feb. 19, page 13.
Our forefathers suffered and died because of their belief in the separation of church and state. The fact that our government has twice ruled in favour of gay rights does in no way overrule what the Bible says (Romans 1:24-28).
There does not seem to be any distinction made in the letter between orientation and practice of homosexual behaviour. We are all born with a sinful nature and must battle with right and wrong daily. How can we confess Jesus as Lord and continue on in sin?
And to say that if we do not accept homosexual behavior then we are fearful of them as people, is not correct. True Christians are willing to accept any person who has recognized that we all have sinful tendencies and are willing to confess and repent of them. To say that only a “small minority” is still “fearful” of gays and lesbians without an exhaustive polling is totally unfounded and potentially misleading.
A foot in both worlds
Outside the box
I was privileged to be the guest of United Mennonite Educational Institute (UMEI) in Leamington, Ont., in February. The world of youth is one I am a foreigner in, and I needed a reality check of life seen through newer eyes, so I asked these fine students to school me. Here’s what I learned listening to teens in Grades 9 to12:
• Entertainment: Our youths are saturated in a world designed to amuse. Almost all have music at the ready through iPods and MP3s, and their tastes are diverse, from opera and classical to country, rock and heavy metal. New and old tunes of the church do get some play between Sundays.
The screen dominates their world. Animated films, horror flicks and everything in between were recent views, and most watch at least two movies weekly. Some read books, but none mentioned their Bibles; few read newspapers. The Internet and video games are constant, and much of this is made in the U.S.
• World and community: Most knew of Iraq and were convinced “we” shouldn’t be there, but I had to point out Canada is not in Iraq. None remembered Afghanistan, but when I mentioned it, they were sure we were unjust in being there.
Other issues like global warming, AIDS, the Pickton trial, job lay-offs and Brittany Spears shaving her head stirred the pot. I was encouraged by their awareness of international and local concerns, but equally alarmed by a lack of critical and biblical thought given to the issues. They generally accept what media says about who is right and wrong.
Interestingly, they are quite anti-American, yet spend much time happily amused by U.S. culture.
• Leadership: Politicians are “liars” and “crooks.” Youths don’t trust the system, but look with favour upon parents, grandparents, teachers, pastors and any who really engage the world for their model, care and courage. They are seeking to be led, for opportunity to learn and fail, and are looking for action in facing the world as it really is.
• Church: There was awareness they live two different lives; they have a foot in both worlds—and they see this in the church too. They are not sure the church is relevant, are ironically bothered by money spent only on the church itself, and are confused by what the church believes and thereby what they believe. They want faith to relate to all areas of life, but see this lacking both personally and corporately. Church, culture and their amused lives seem schizophrenically separated.
• Food for thought: Culture is overwhelmingly technological—an innate skill and language for teens; perpetually youth-centred—a pipe-dream we pay billions to cling to; and “glocal” (global and local)—a source of information-overload, entertainment, and concern, indifference and confusion for youths.
Secular western culture, with its values and belief system, is their homeland and provides them with their primary worldview. They see life through secular eyes, which bespeaks enormous missional possibilities and disturbing discipleship problems.
The church is a source of hope and security, but feeds a disconnect they are weary of as they ping-pong between two worlds. Faith seems a goulash of humanism, secular liberalism, Oprahisms, and Hollywoodisms, with a dash of Sunday school clichés thrown in.
Does it matter what they believe so long as they are nice and successful? How can they lead an engaged, Christ-centred life in this world? How are they challenging the rest of us with a foot in both worlds?
A drink-hate relationship with Starbucks
New Order voice
First, a few words about Starbucks coffee and why I oppose it. Then, an explanation of why I drank some at a church office.
I’ll keep it to four reasons. First, as I move in a world of symbols, Starbucks coffee represents corporate greed. The company has managed to grow from 165 outlets in 1992 to 12,338 last year. According to an announcement last October, president Jim Donald hopes to expand that to 40,000 worldwide.
In my own life, I’m trying to foster a sense of “enough.” And with my consumer spending I prefer to patronize companies with modest ambitions.
Second, Starbucks is not a leader in the movement toward fairly traded coffee. While they claim to be the largest single purchaser of fairly traded coffee, such coffee still only accounts for 3.7 per cent of all their coffee.
I prefer to brew my own coffee, made with beans from Chris, a guy down the street who bulk orders from a friend, who gets the beans from a B.C. roaster, who buys directly from producers in Colombia for higher-than-market prices. Large corporations use their buying power to force producers to lower their prices. This is unfair. And I want to support companies that lead the way in promoting fairly traded products.
Third, the growth of Starbucks—and its incursion into so many city centres—homogenizes local culture. I suppose a benefit is that you can go to Toronto, Vancouver or China’s Forbidden City and get the same coffee, with predictable floor plans and dainties. This generic dimension is perversely comforting. We feel a sense of the familiar in a strange town. On the other hand, regional diversity is replaced with meticulously crafted corporate character, packaged with the personal charm of a barista and consolation of upscale elevator music.
This comfy retail facade is replicated by other retail giants, including Best Buy, Future Shop, Home Depot, Wal-Mart and Esso. These stores are physical extensions of the reality created by advertising, the false world conveyed by Hollywood and People magazine. From the number of cars in the parking lots, most people seem to like this reality.
I find it highly problematic. And counter to Jesus’ words: “Store up for yourselves treasures that moth and rust cannot destroy.”
And fourth, it reinforces an identity I need to shun. People use consumer purchases and logos as a way of forming their identity. I do it too. That’s why I prefer to buy things used and enjoy peeling off labels. I’m going for the “no brand” brand. When I buy coffee, I want my purchase to reflect my identity as a justice-seeking, generous, community-minded citizen. Hence I usually make coffee at home or visit small coffee shops.
So, given my strong feelings about Starbucks coffee, I was faced with a dilemma one recent Saturday morning. I joined a national Mennonite Church meeting and they offered me Starbucks coffee. It was in a cardboard “coffee pot” (it must have had a plastic liner), along with cardboard cups, all with appropriate branding. I could have—should have?—declined.
Instead, I said “sure” and drank it black. I considered that encounter as a “cross-cultural experience,” even though I was with fellow Mennonites. That is, they offered me the brands and symbols of disposable, consumer culture. Meanwhile, I’m trying to embody a counter-culture. But still, I need to be gracious.