a collection of thoughts on Mennonites
Elliot wants me to post on the topic of Mennonites and evangelicalism and presumably fundamentalism and other such things. So here goes.
Some Mennonite churches are moving away from their Anabaptist distinctiveness (particularly in terms of pacifism, and perhaps also from the emphasis on social justice). Take the example of Portage Avenue Mennonite Brethren Church in Winnipeg, which is now calling itself Portage Avenue Church. There are positives and negatives to be considered here.
Positives:
It's a very open acknowledgement that Mennonites do not have a monopoly on salvation, and that it is faith in Christ that is ultimately important and not one's particular denomination. Also, it is perhaps an acknowledgement that very little remains of the church's Mennonite distinctiveness, and the new name more accurately reflects what a church really is.
Negatives (mostly in terms of my own opinion):
If the church does indeed value its Mennonite identity and has only changed its name as a way to nab more unsuspecting newcomers, that's stupid and seems kind of underhanded.
I am sad to see the waning of emphasis on peace and social justice (which includes/ought to include ecological justice). I think there is a desperate need for such a witness by the church in North America and the West today. I'm not a huge fan of the mainstream American evangelical/fundamentalist brand of Christianity, one of the reasons being that it too often supports the status quo of the American government. One might even accuse Mennonite churches that subscribe to this version of Christianity as being too worldly, because their ways are more widely acccepted and even fashionable (see Elliot's post for a few Christian media and fashion atrocities), and are not particularly radical (as the Anabaptists have been called).
I don't feel like I'm nearly done saying all there is to be said here, and even what I did say wasn't particularly well-edited. Anyone who wants should comment, and perhaps the conversation will bring out more things to think about. It always takes me a certain amount of conversation or just plain blathering to feel like I've properly addressed a topic. I'm not much of an essayist, that would require me to be concise.
10 comments:
Woot! Thank you!
I've noticed differences between two camps of Mennonites - the ones who are buying heavily into the standard mainstream evangelical political stance (and power), and the ones who are really pushing their radical Reformation roots (rock, rock on, righteous radical reformation roots... reggae! Ahem.)
I notice this in Steinbach. The Carillon newspaper makes it sound as though Steinbach's mostly voting Conservative, hoping for tax cuts, worrying intensely about gay marriage and abortion, and not at all about economic disparity, etc, etc. In short, being played by conservative politicians who are mostly interested in tax cuts for large corporations and rich people, but who know how to put on a social-conservatism show when they come to Steinbach. The same thing that goes on in the States all the time (politicians who serve big business in everything they do and couldn't care less about the poor or morality suddenly start thumping the family-values drum around election time.) Vic Toews keeps getting reelected, and now he's the Justice minister, promoting the 'lock up the evil inhuman bastards and throw away the key' school of justice reform.
And then on the other hand there's a bunch of Mennonites who are on the cutting edge of social justice, creating these innovative programs to help the poor, the disadvantaged, high-risk sex offenders, etc. Radical, world-class ideas.
The thing is that they all have the same last names. I thought the difference was that the first bunch lived in rural communities and the second in Winnipeg, but Melissa says both camps exist in both places.
Thoughts?
I hate to say it, but the two Mennonite Camps you've outlined can be very roughly defined along the lines of "Mennonite Brethren Conference " versus "Mennonite Church Canada/USA," with the MB's leaning towards the more mainstream evangelical/American/fundamentalist-ish side of things and the MC's towards the social justice side of things.
Interestingly, a significant exception seems to be MC British Columbia, which largely leans towards generic non-denominational evangelicalism and not so much towards the hardcore peace and social justice. There are several congregations that are exceptions again, but the dissociation from a strong Mennonite identity of several congregations has eventually led to their leaving the conference. This is sad, but I think it's for the better because they didn't "get" the larger conference (specifically the national Mennonite conference) and the conference didn't so much "get" them.
I also have ties to the smaller Evangelical Mennonite Conference (mostly of the genetic variety), and they're more difficult to categorize. They're definitely into evangelism and missions, but they also cling strongly to pacifism. I'm not entirely sure about the social justice factor there, I don't recall it being a big deal in any case. My impression of MB's (largely formed upon my working at an MB summer camp for 5 years) is that the peace position is becoming neglected except perhaps by the very oldest of them, and I also don't perceive social justice as being a huge concern.
I wish there was a clear label for this brand of mainstream evangelical/fundamental/American/non-denominational style Christianity that we're discussing. I am unsatisfied with all the labels we've come up with so far, but I don't know what to do with it.
Just as an FYI here, I am a part of the Mennonite Church Canada conference. I am a member of Toronto United Mennonite Church (TUMC - prounounced "tum-see"), and I now actively attend and participate in the life of Peace Mennonite Church here in BC.
We could call them... fundigelicals!
Somehow that sounds like a combination of "fun" and "jello"...
'We put the 'fun' in fundamentalist!'
hey dearest, once again you shed light into the charming enigma that is Mennonites. I had an unmistably jones on for pickles and cheese and crackers while reading this discourse
WHOA!!!!
I don't have anything constructive to add to this discussion, mostly because the discussion isn't constructive in and of itself. I just wanted to let you know that I am QUITE offended at your definition of MB's vs. MC Canada's. I loved CMU but this stereotype drove me CRAZY while I was there...I often felt like a "second class citizen" simply because of the church I was brought up in...and to have one of my good friends perpetuating this makes me very very sad.
Sorry, but I had to say it.
Hi Steph (and others)
I have a few responses:
1) I am sorry to have caused offense. That was not my intention. I apologize.
2) I said the two camps can be "very roughly" defined along those lines. I had hoped that by noting one prominent exception, it would demonstrate that I in no way see this as being close to black and white.
3) I have tried to explain where and how my impressions were formed. In either this post or in part 2 a few days later, I explained that my impressions of the MB conference were formed mainly by working at camp, which is far from a full experience.
4) I have not meant to label some people as second class Christians. I have tried to make my gist in this whole conversation to be that I really don't understand "get" some things about other branches of Christianity, not that other expressions of Christianity are stupid.
5) I have tried to speak truthfully about my experience of different groups of Mennonites, and in my experience (which is not synonymous with the Truth), the two camps Elliot described as "standard mainstream evangelical political stance" and "pushing their radical Reformation roots" in some ways do fall very roughly into the MB and MC categories. (Please note the expressions "in my experience" and "very roughly" and remember the big exception I noted in MCBC, as well as a third group of Mennos that I know of, the EMCs.)
6) I feel that some of Elliot's responses here are more strongly worded than I would agree with. I hope you are responding to me about things that I have said myself.
I hope this helps. Please do respond. I like you.
Hi all, this is Boyd
I am Diedre’s uncle (living in Toronto)
Many cultural groups have peace-seeking as a prominent feature of their histories, among them are the East Indian traditions which produced Gandhi, the American Quakers, and the Mennonites.
Even though peace-keeping itself is not dying, it is dying in many of these cultures which I previously thought would have kept it going:
East India got nuclear weapons, a prominent Quaker was Nixon, and many Manitoba Mennonites voted for a party whose leader vocally supported the first-stike, unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
And on March 31, another milestone in the decline of peace-seeking in the Mennonite tradition happened under the jurisdiction of the Mennonite with the highest public profile ever in Canada: Minister of Justice Vic Toews: One of “his Federal Court” Judges, Anne Mactavish, made a ruling which was a slap in the face to all people who refuse to bear arms—whether they be the Mennonites of the past 500 years who suffered greatly to keep this rule, or whether it be Jeremy Hinzman, who is a person who refused to bear arms in the first-strike, unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
Worse yet, the Mactavish ruling, under the jurisdiction of Minister of Justice, Vic Toews, contradicts the principles of the Nuremberg trials, which did not buy the excuse “We were just taking orders.”
Yes, under the jurisdiction of a Mennonite, of all people, the “horror-re-living” ruling came out. Many Mennonites in Provencher riding voted for this.
I, and others, are now looking outside the Mennonite tradition for new traditions of peace-seeking.
As I mentioned, I am Diedre’s uncle:
Speaking of uncles, one of my uncles,an uncle of mine, Dr. Lawrence Klippenstein, now retired, was head archivist at what is now CMU.
Another one of my uncles just finished a term as chair of the board of the Mennonite Heritage Village Museum (Arnold Reimer.) I have sent him a copy of the below letter, which I wrote to Vic Toews.
I pleaded with my Uncle Arnold, as I plead with all of you who read this, to PLEASE send a similar letter to Vic Toews to act to bring about legislation which will allow the Iraq war resistors to stay in Canada.
Also see the website www.resistors.ca for the War Resistors Support Campaign
Bye
Boyd
See below letter and article
----------------------------------------------------
May 21, 2006
Greetings Minister of Justice Vic Toews,
I am the grandson of John C. Reimer, one of the main founders of the Mennonite Heritage Village Museum in Steinbach, Manitoba, my birthplace, and the place where you had your election victory party.
This museum is now a cultural center, and one of the main social fixtures for a large proportion of your constituents. Why does it exist?
The answer: One of the main reasons my grandfather worked so hard for decades to set up this museum was to preserve the Mennonite tradition of peace. For 500 years, most of my ancestors, the Mennonites, suffered greatly because they refused to bear arms. Because of that War Resistor stand they took in their years in Europe, they were forced off of their land many times, forced by certain governments to move away in a search for a country which would allow them to continue to be War Resistors. Often, they were forced to take the worst land for farming.
Jeremy Hinzman is also a war resistor. He, like the ancestors of many of your constituents, moved to a land (Canada) to resist war. But now he, like the ancestors of most of your constituents, is likely to face suffering (time in a US military prison) simply because he resisted war.
The war which he resisted was even more deserving of being resisted than many of the wars which the Mennonites resisted in past centuries because it was a first-strike invasion of Iraq, and an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
The likelihood that he will endure this unjustified suffering in a US military prison increased dramatically because of what happened on March 31, 2006 within the realm of your Department of Justice, Minister Toews. The Federal Court is under your jurisdiction.
On that day, Federal Court Justice Ann Mactavish said, “"An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace. The ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper."
Her statement and her ruling is in direct contradiction to the principles which governed the decisions of the Nuremberg trials in 1945 when the Nazis tried unsuccessfully to use the defense, “I was just following orders.”
Minister Toews, in order to best represent the people who voted you into power, and in order to continue the principles of the Nuremberg trials, I believe you are logically obligated to tell your Prime Minister what Trudeau told Canadians in the Vietnam War era, namely this: “Those who make a conscientious judgement that they must not participate in this war . . . have my complette sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been[/should be] to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism.”
Minister of Justice, Mr. Toews, will you tell this to your Prime Minister and urge him to introduce legislation which will allow Iraq war resistors to stay in Canada?
Sincerely,
Boyd Reimer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following article appeared in Toronto’s Now Magazine, May 18-24, 2006
AWOL GIS DEALT LEGAL BLOW -- LATEST COURT DECISION LEAVES REFUGEE CLAIMS OF IRAQ WAR REFUSENIKS IN DOUBT By MATT MERNAGH
When American anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan blew through town the week before last, she brought with her some pointed criticisms of the Harper government's Bush-like warmongering in Afghanistan.
She also made an emotional plea for the feds to follow the example set by Canuck governments of the Vietnam War era and offer refuge to U.S. soldiers currently AWOL from Iraq.
Time is running out. And their legal options are shrinking now that the Federal Court of Canada has soundly rejected Jeremy Hinzman's appeal of an earlier Immigration and Refugee Board decision denying him refugee status.
The Federal Court's decision, handed down by Justice Anne Mactavish on March 31, leaves very little wriggle room not only for Hinzman, but also for other Iraq War deserters whose cases are scheduled to wend their way through the courts in the weeks and months ahead.
Some legal observers say Justice Mactavish's decision, one that troubles Amnesty International and other human rights advocates, all but hammers the door closed to future refugee claims by U.S. soldiers.
Mactavish gave little credence to the main arguments advanced by Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffry House, that the war in Iraq is against international law and that Hinzman, a conscientious objector, would have been forced to participate in unlawful acts had he gone.
The judge also held that a soldier's moral, political or religious convictions against a war, no matter how deeply held, are not sufficient grounds for this country to offer refuge.
While there is no question that freedom of thought, conscience and religion are fundamental rights recognized in international law, Mactavish said there is no internationally recognized right to object to a particular war, except under the circumstances described in paragraph 171 of the UN High Commission on Refugees Handbook.
That section stipulates that "it is not enough for a person to be in disagreement with his government regarding the political justification for a particular military action." To qualify as a refugee, there also needs to be evidence to demonstrate that "the type of military action with which an individual does not wish to be associated is condemned by the international community as contrary to the basic rules of human conduct."
House introduced legal opinions prepared by the U.S. attorney general for the president (the so-called Gonzales opinions) on the unconstitutionality of U.S. laws implementing the UN Convention Against Torture as evidence that "the United States... has conducted itself with relative impu-nity, and... a completed disregard for international norms in its... so-called war against terror."
Mactavish ruled that "while the content of the Gonzales opinions is unquestionably disturbing... the opinions are just that – legal opinions prepared for the president. They do not represent a statement of American policy."
House also raised the absence of a UN Security Council resolution sanctioning the war in Iraq as further evidence of the U.S.'s disregard for international law.
Where questions have been raised by human rights groups about the conduct of U.S. soldiers, in particular as they relate to the killing of Iraqi civilians and conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention centre in Cuba and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Mactavish said the U.S. has been quick to take corrective action.
"It is generally accepted," the judge reasoned, "that isolated breaches of international humanitarian law are an unfortunate... inevitable reality of war."
But there is no evidence, she said, that the U.S. "as a matter of deliberate policy or official indifference, required or allowed its combatants to engage in widespread actions in violation of humanitarian law."
The judge cited several Canadian legal precedents that require a "reasonable fear on the part of the objector that he will be personally involved in such acts (against humanity), as opposed to a more generalized assertion of fear or opinion based on reported examples of individual excesses of the kind which almost inevitably occur in the course of armed conflict."
Mactavish found "no merit" in House's contention that Hinzman would have been called upon to participate in violations of humanitarian law had he gone to Iraq.
There's "no suggestion," Mactavish argued, "that the United States Army is an organization that is principally directed to a limited, brutal purpose such that mere membership in the organization could be sufficient to meet the requirements of personal and knowing participation in international crimes.
"An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace. The ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper."
Amnesty International's Canadian head honcho, secretary general Alex Neve, expresses concern that Mactavish's decision sets a precedent whereby "those at senior levels who have an objection to war may [seek refugee status], and those who deploy who have an objection may not. This runs contrary to other international law rulings."
Neve adds, "All soldiers, all government officials should be constantly assessing what their government or military is asking them to do. This sets a dangerous precedent [that] the poor lowly soldier shouldn't tangle himself up with thinking conflict through. He should just go with the flow."
Noah Novogrodsky, director of U of T's international human rights program, says Mactavish's decision will force other resisters to "walk this fine line." On the one hand, they have to be able to prove they were close enough to meet the participation test; on the other, admitting to taking part in war crimes will make them ineligible for refugees status.
"It's not a very thorough examination of how close to the atrocity one has to be."
Despite the Mactavish decision, groups here helping AWOL American GIs are counselling them not to stay underground. There are plenty of good reasons, they argue, for U.S. war resisters to make a refugee claim – access to health care and a work permit after six months among them.
Lee Zaslofsky, a spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign, says, "We need to ensure that they have status in Canada [as visitors or refugee claimants] at all times."
Yet few seem to be following that advice. Of an estimated 200 GIs thought to be AWOL in Canada, only 20 have so far filed a refugee claim.
Mactavish's ruling won't help the cause of other Iraq War vets who came here to bide their time, hoping for the war to end or for political pressure to push the feds into offering legal ex-emptions.
Says House, "We should be helping the powerless."
Post a Comment