Canadian Mennonite
Volume 13, No. 19
Oct. 5, 2009
Readers Write
We welcome your comments and publish most letters sent by subscribers intended for publication. Respecting our theology of the priesthood of all believers and of the importance of the faith community discernment process, this section is a largely open forum for the sharing of views. Letters are the opinion of the writer only—publication does not mean endorsement by the magazine or the church. Letters should be brief and address issues rather than individuals.
Please send letters to be considered for publication to letters@canadianmennonite.org or by postal mail or fax, marked “Attn: Readers Write” (our address is on page 3). Letters should include the author’s contact information and mailing address. Letters are edited for length, style and adherence to editorial guidelines.
Scholar seeks Mennonite perspectives on labour issues
How did North American Mennonites respond to labour issues in the late 20th century? My preliminary research suggests that there might not have been a consistent response.
For example, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Manitoba was asked in the early 1970s to assist Manitoba Mennonites who were seeking exemption from union membership. These Mennonites believed that union membership was incompatible with their religious beliefs. Further, they thought the newly elected NDP government and the Manitoba Labour Board were interpreting provincial labour legislation in a manner biased against Mennonites, and wanted assistance in their struggle against union membership.
By contrast, MCC British Columbia had organized a series of seminars in the 1950s and 1960s which asserted that Mennonites should be debating the question, “How can a Christian be a union member?” rather than, “Should a Christian be a union member?”
Why were Mennonites so divided on labour issues? To what extent did age, gender, national origin, migration history, church conference affiliation, educational background and class position play a role in individual Mennonite responses to labour issues?
To answer these questions, I will be consulting archives and conducting interviews across Canada and the U.S. I hope to talk to Mennonites about how their religious commitments shaped their perspectives on labour issues, how their background influenced their religious beliefs, and whether their understandings of religion and labour have changed over time.
I am seeking to interview Canadian participants in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., Winnipeg, and Vancouver/Abbotsford, B.C., as well as Americans in Goshen, Ind., Bluffton, Ohio, and Fresno-Reedley, Calif. If you are a Mennonite worker, pastor, business owner/manager, or academic—or if you are the child or grandchild of such a person—please e-mail me at ja.thiessen@uwinnipeg.ca.
MCC’s anti-Israeli stance goes against God’s will for his chosen people
Re: “Mennonite Anti-Zionism?” by Dick Benner, Sept. 21, page 2.
Imagine for a moment that your father left you an inheritance of land. You went away for a long time, and when you came back people were living in your home. You knew these people hated you in the past, but hoping bygones were bygones, you graciously allowed them to stay on your property. Shortly after your arrival, you learned that some of these people and their neighbouring relatives were furious that you had returned home and were planning war against you. You were left to defend your property and, with God’s help, you foiled their attempt! Your enemies began to talk about how you were away so long that you had forfeited your right to it anyway.
Ignoring history and legal documents, people began to write letters to the paper about how aggressive and cruel you are, calling you “occupiers” of your own property! Other neighbours circulated “peace plans” to show how your inheritance could be nicely divided with your enemies that repeatedly try to kill you.
Welcome to Israel’s story.
Mennonite Central Committee has taken a firm stand against Israel from which they cannot now claim innocence:
• By refusing to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country and only calling her “Palestine/Israel”;
• By visiting churches and promoting questionable accounts of Israeli aggression;
• By numerous articles against, or misrepresenting, Zionism;
• By letters to our own Prime Minister calling Israel “occupiers”;
• By claiming it is for justice and peace while endorsing the theft of Israeli property and ignoring the aggression against her.
But the bottom line is this: God gave Israel the land. There has always been a godly Jewish remnant to whom the promises of God apply and will endure. The problem then is not with Israel; it is with those who do not believe the Word of God and who would “make the promises of God of no effect,” that is, those who make him a liar. For those who are so quick to deny the eternal promises of God for Israel, I simply ask, what makes you think he will keep his eternal promises to you?
Do the promises of God for Israel mean that he loves Palestinians any less? Of course not. They are souls for whom Christ died and he loves them. But the land is not theirs. God gave it to Israel by eternal decree and, although the world unites against Israel (as it will), God will be found true. He will still bless those who bless her and curse those who rise up against her. He will yet defend her and make her “a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of earth” Jeremiah 33:9.
Who is the foreigner, Christ or the Jews?
Israel was bidden not to oppress or offend the foreigners living among them. In Exodus 22:21 we read, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress them, for you were aliens in Egypt” (NIV). Deuteronomy 10:17-19 says, “For the Lord your God . . . shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.”
The question is, who is the foreigner on this earth. Is it Christ, or is it the Jews?
Zechariah 4:10 commands, “Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor,” while Hebrews 11:13 declares, “All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.”
During the Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah and Ezekiel had this to say: “[I]f you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever” (Jeremiah 7:6-7); and, “You are to allot [this land] as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites . . . declares the Sovereign Lord” (Ezekiel 47:22-23).
This is what God said to his people, Israel, and then to all those who read and study God’s Word. But to his children everywhere he says in Ephesians 2:19, “Consequently you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”
From Our Leaders
Schizophrenia, service and the grace of God
.jpg)
Sometimes a thought about a certain subject sticks in my mind; usually this is the result of reading, discussion or watching TV. Lately, schizophrenia has been mulling around in my head. Louise and I have been reading a book, The Soloist, for one of our book clubs. Then the movie, A Brilliant Mind, played on TV the other day. Both are true, very gripping stories of men who developed schizophrenia after promising starts in their chosen careers, one in music and the other in mathematics.
Nathaniel Ayers was a promising student at the Julliard School of Music and ended up on the streets of Los Angeles as a homeless man playing a violin with two strings. Steve Lopez, a columnist for the L.A. Times, discovers him accidentally, writes a series of columns about him, and hopes to change both Ayers and the city’s indifference to its homeless people and the conditions in which they live.
John Nash eventually won a Nobel Prize for his economics in game theory, and was able to crack Soviet codes that seemed to be beyond others in the field during the Cold War. When his schizophrenia hit, he became delusional and dysfunctional, sometimes even dangerous. Eventually, he was helped by his wife Alicia, who stuck with him in spite of many heart-breaking experiences that would drive most couples apart forever.
[T]his condition brought many heartaches as they tried to deal with this devastating illness, but they stuck with her . . . .
These stories brought to mind friends of ours who had a daughter who developed schizophrenia at about age 19 while attending university. She was a beautiful young woman who was doing well in school when it struck. For them, too, this condition brought many heartaches as they tried to deal with this devastating illness, but they stuck with her and went out of their way many times to help her. She passed away several years ago.
There are no instant cures for this condition, but with medication and the love and friendship of others—usually family—many of them live a fragile life, often teetering on the brink of sanity but managing to hang on.
Lopez comes to a surprising conclusion in his book when he writes of Nathaniel Ayers, “He has wiped away my professional malaise and shown me the dignity in being loyal to something you believe in, and it’s not a stretch to say that this man I hoped to save has done as much for me as I have for him.”
This is the lesson we learned during our Mennonite Central Committee service in the 1970s. Many of us thought that if enough of us went out to help and worked hard we could change the world, or at least a part of it. We came back realizing that we received much more than we ever gave, and it was we who were changed—not the rest of the world—and our friendship with the people we met has endured over the decades. This is the power of God’s grace in our lives.
Family Ties
The appeal of fantasy
The realization dawned on me slowly, perhaps because I’m a slow learner or perhaps because I’m susceptible to romantic illusions. I “got smart” while lost in the pages of a murder mystery by Diane Mott Davidson, lingering over the description of the detective’s perfect husband. He was handsome, strong and sensitive. He was also a brave and dependable cop, rescuing the detective when she was in danger. Plus, he could whip up fabulous food whenever she needed sustenance and comfort. As the light bulb switched on in the dim crevices of my grey matter, I exclaimed, “Wait a minute! He’s a fantasy husband!”
When I shared my profound insight with my husband and son, they both responded with looks that were a mixture of wariness and concern, the kind we offer someone when they’re on the verge of embarrassing themselves. My husband, choosing safety, remained silent. My son offered carefully, “That’s why they call it fiction, Mom.”
Fantasy is a dimension of human experience drawn from, but not bound by, concrete reality. Fantasy is related to imagination. Working with Webster’s definitions, fantasy is “the free play of creative imagination.” To imagine is “to form a mental image of [something that is not present].” We use fantasy in many ways and for many reasons.
Our fantasies—our imaginations—can contribute to an increased awareness of the abundance and blessedness of our lives.
Young people may fantasize about when they are grown up, of the work or family life they may have, and of freedom to pursue their own interests. A newly married couple may imagine the future: the life they are building together, the children that might join their family, their ideal home. An athlete might use fantasy to realize a perfect game, a flawless move. Someone who is ill with cancer may actively imagine a time when his or her body is cancer-free. It is easy to see positive potential in such fantasies. They might get us through adversity, strengthen our commitments, compel us to do our best, and aid us in living well today so that our tomorrows are more complete.
But fantasies also have the potential for negative outcomes. Instead of using our imaginations to dream with our loved ones, or to propel ourselves to health, we may go down unhealthy paths. The perfect spouse in the mystery novel becomes preferable to the spouse in one’s own home. The perfect body on the Internet becomes preferable to the warm, real body to which one has made a commitment. The stories being played out in movies and on television can be more engaging than the story of one’s own life.
The life of Jesus was given that human life might be more full and whole. As he tells his friends: “I have come that you might have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10 paraphrased). Our fantasies—our imaginations—can contribute to an increased awareness of the abundance and blessedness of our lives. Or fantasies can breed dissatisfaction and deprivation in us.
Author Philip Gulley offers a different kind of fantasy than the one found in my opening story. In Signs and Wonders, a wife reflects on her husband’s qualities after a particularly unhappy family vacation, one planned by her husband. She thinks about how much he’s like his father and momentarily feels disappointed by that realization. Then she considers other characteristics of her father-in-law: his respect, the way he loves his wife and his steady faithfulness. With those thoughts, she concludes, “[I]f he turns out like his father, that wouldn’t be so bad.”
Such fantasies help us appreciate what we’ve got.
God, Money and Me
Plastic surgery
I was really surprised at how uncomfortable it was to leave the house. This past July my husband and I accompanied a group of youths to Mennonite World Conference in Paraguay. The packing list for our three-week trip included only the necessities: sleeping bag, clothes, toiletries, a Bible and a few small gifts, with everything to be carried in one backpack.
It was a little weird to leave the house without ID. The group coordinator still had our passports from her embassy visit and was going to have them for us at the airport. No need for a driver’s licence or health card, so they stayed at home. We were advised that debit cards were rarely accepted in Paraguay or Brazil, so there was no point in taking them along either. The credit card, however, was the most difficult of all. I knew I wouldn’t need it, and yet leaving it behind remained a struggle.
The “what ifs” of international travel ran through my head. What if we were stranded at an airport? What if we had to pay for medical care or medications? What if there was an emergency and someone needed to come home? Despite the fact that we were carrying sufficient cash, the group had travel insurance, our coordinator was carrying a credit card and the conference office would surely wire money if needed, I struggled with leaving my credit card behind. I pondered my struggle at various moments in our trip.
I often use a credit card, especially for work. It’s almost required to rent a car or book a flight. Since I am reimbursed for my expenses, it’s handy that expenses don’t come out of our personal bank account immediately. By using a credit card for work-related costs, I can submit my expenses and by the time the credit card bill comes, I’ve usually received my reimbursement cheque. My husband and I pay off our personal cards monthly and we don’t use them to buy things we can’t afford. The credit card is strictly for convenience. So why my struggle to leave the card at home? Was I that dependent on plastic?
It seems that having a credit card with me gives me a sense of security. I feel safe knowing that if an emergency were to arise, I would have the means to deal with it. I could pay a tow truck or repair centre if my car broke down. I could pay for a hotel room if I were stranded. I could deal with whatever financial need arose. Carrying that piece of plastic makes me feel safe; I can independently fix any problem that might arise.
But this is a false sense of security and a false sense of independence. A credit card doesn’t keep me safe, and it won’t keep my loved ones safe. While it may provide me with a financial buffer, and it can be helpful on occasion, a credit card cannot solve my problems and it cannot protect me. It was good for me to leave my credit card home this summer and to wrestle with my attachment to plastic. Back at home I’m using the credit card again, but I’m keenly aware that my safety and security rest—appropriately—in the hands of God.
Carrying that piece of plastic makes me feel safe; I can independently fix any problem that might arise.