Pictorial Anabaptist Walk in Zurich with Map

Lessons from the Story of Abraham & Isaac

 

This enigmatic story, from Genesis 22:1-19, has puzzled more than a few thinkers. I referred to this story where God ostensibly asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. Over the centuries, millennia even, readers have wondered, Why would God ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son? Of course, those of us who know the story, know it has a ‘happy ending.’ Well, happy for Abraham and his only son, but not for the ram that God pointed out to Abraham at the last minute to offer instead of his son.

 

I titled this essay, “Lessons…”, not singular, indicating there has been more than one understanding drawn from this tale. So, what might they be?

 

There are at least two common meanings that have been derived from the story since it first entered Hebrew consciousness. Actually, I should more accurately say, not having studied Judaism to any extent, these are lessons Christianity has taken from this saga. 

 

The first is concerning religion of the time in a general sense. Apparently, many of the peoples surrounding Abraham at the time, and perhaps even more so when his descendants came on the scene after that 400-year sojourn in Egypt, offered infant and child sacrifices in an effort to appease their gods, to gain their gods’ ear in their accompanying supplications. The line I was thinking here goes that God was testing Abraham. God wanted to see if Abraham would indeed offer his son as a sacrifice as his contemporaries were want to do. We understand that Abraham was one of the original monotheists, i.e. believing in only one God ultimately, and perhaps God was testing him here to see if he still also would continue to worship other gods in the way his contemporaries and perhaps ancestors had done

 

In the first place, with regards to this interpretation, we should first of all note that Abraham was obedient to his God. He followed the instructions he apparently received and took several days journey with his son, servants and firewood, to the mountain where God had indicated this sacrifice was to take place. This is just another example of where Abraham obeyed God. That was one of Abraham's strong points, and something we can learn from in itself. 

 

As we have already mentioned, ultimately, Abraham was not required to sacrifice his son. This leads us to a second understanding of this story. Some see it as a ‘type’ or an example of something that was to come, namely the sacrifice of Jesus. Some might say that the sacrifice of another human would be ineffective to the extent to which what has been viewed as another sacrifice some 2000 years later was viewed. I refer, of course, to Christ's death on the cross. There is a degree to which the traditional and generally accepted understanding of Jesus' death is that it was a sacrifice, a sacrifice to end all sacrifices, as is described, at least in first reading, in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament.

 

There are many though, who still are uncomfortable with this story, and at the same time are uncomfortable with the traditional understanding of Jesus' death. Increasingly, over the last half-century and more, theologians have begun to seriously challenge the long-standing understanding of Jesus' death as a ransom, paid to free us, a substitute for us. In that understanding, humanity was viewed as under a curse ever since "the fall", the story in Genesis 3, and only Jesus' death could remove that curse, not a human, such as Abraham's son, because only Jesus, as both all-powerfully divine and all-human, was capable of accomplishing that.

 

Even if we stopped to think about the word ransom, to whom was this ransom owed? To whom was it paid? If we contend that the human race had fallen into the domain of Satan ever since our ancestors' disobedience to God, was this a ransom paid to Satan to obtain our freedom? This is absurd. Our all-powerful God owes nothing to Satan. Why would he sacrifice - his son - to Satan?

 

Others understand it slightly different, seeing Jesus' death as taking on our penalty for disobedience and giving his life to atone for that, as we, imperfect as we are, could never achieve that. Again, the question is asked, would the God of love, grace, light, truth and mercy scheme to send his only son to earth to die for us in such a horrible way?

 

Some of those who question these understandings maintain that holding to those beliefs is what has led over the centuries to what they would see as a distorted belief in the value of suffering and ultimately even in suffering abuse, such as a spouse from her husband. How often have we not heard of clerics telling their female parishioners to go home and stay with their abusive husbands, as that is their duty, or by so doing they may witness to their husbands and stop the abuse. With this really be what the God we described in the last sentence of the last paragraph would want? Those who have really been oppressed and suffered, over the centuries, such as women and Blacks, who are now writing their own theologies, cannot accept this. This is entirely understandable.

 

Then there are those of us who have long had difficulty reconciling what appears to be a judgmental God who even orders genocide, as might appear to be described in the Old Testament, with a God who is otherwise described as Love, with a God who was exemplified by the life that Jesus lived. The life that Jesus lived, the picture he gave us of God, seems so different from what many have understood as representing "the God of the Old Testament." 

 

This understanding is something that has increasingly come under the scrutiny of my co-religionists, anabaptists, who firmly believe that Jesus taught us away of peace and nonviolence. They, plus those thinkers and writers described in the second to last paragraph above, are leading us in a new understanding of the nature of Jesus' death that does not require us to accept all those other views of God and explanations of Jesus' death that have become unacceptable.

 

I am not going to flesh out what these new understandings are. That would be the subject of further writing. However, I think it can point back to our original subject story and give it a third even more important meaning. If we can accept that God did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice, a ransom, a substitute, with all the negative connotations those interpretations bring, we can see that this story of Abraham and Isaac is indeed typology, but in a different way than I mentioned above.

 

According to what I am introducing here, this story points not to the belief that the death of Jesus was required as a sacrifice over and against a human sacrifice. It points to the even more fulfilling understanding that such a death, a sacrifice, is not necessary at all. Again, the full understanding of this point would only be gained by further reading of the texts of those anabaptist, black and female writers I referred to above (One good place to start though, as far as that is concerned, would be J. Danny Weaver's The Nonviolent Atonement, particularly as he critically summarizes any of the writings of those other camps).

 

Just a footnote here: Some might still ask, what about the ram? To that, my simple comeback would be, as Jesus and the subsequent New Testament writers themselves made clear, animal sacrifices are no longer required either. Indeed, there are some hints in the Old Testament, Jeremiah 6:20 and 7:21-23 come to mind, that they might never really have been demanded by God. Again, that is another subject.

The Most Important Decision of My Life

Oh, what’s this, some of you might say. Is this new? No, and it’s not the decision to leave the prairies for British Columbia in 2005. It’s not even getting married in 1977. Nor is it choosing to go into medicine as a career in 1965. It’s a decision I made when I was a youngster of seven years of age, maybe six. 

I refer to my decision to become a Christian. Actually, it was not entirely different than the decision many children make to follow the faith of their parents, their ancestors. When you grow up in a certain faith, to begin with, that I all you know. You accept it as the norm. 

You see, I come from a line of Christians that can be traced back to the Reformation in the 1600s in Europe. My ancestors were likely Dutch and had become part of the Anabaptist movement. They were called that because they chose to be re-baptized on confession of their own faith. They had come to the conclusion, through their study of the scriptures, the Bible, which was becoming available because of the printing press, that the infant baptism practiced by The Church at the time was not biblically based. This had been the practice of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. The first Reformers, the Lutheran and then Reformed Church, continued the practice, as did bodies like the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church after that.

So, my parents, at least to me at the time and in my growing up years, were wonderful models of what I have come to understand it means to be a Christian. Our home was filled with love, generosity and hospitality. Our parents helped many a neighbour. 

My parents were in fact what we called missionaries. They had felt called to live among Manitoba’s indigenous people and be a witness there to the message they had come to believe in their own lives. Father was our pastor. He and mother were our Sunday school teachers and music leaders. Sometimes there were extra activities for children and in the summer, Daily Vacation Bible School. Father, for the Protestants, and the local Roman Catholic priest for the Catholics, even taught Religion classes in the local school, which was allowed then (this was the early 1950s).

So, I had heard the story of the Bible from infancy on. I knew the good news, the gospel message. Simply put, it was that all we humans have gone astray from the way our Creator God had intended. He had sent his Son, the long-promised Anointed One (Messiah in Hebrew or Christ in Greek) to become one of us humans, the miracle of God become man – the big word is Incarnate – to show us what God was really like and what God was about. Ultimately, the world did not want to see it, hear it and - we likely know the story – Jesus, his human name, was killed; crucified in fact. However, three days later he shocked everyone by rising from the dead to live a further forty days on earth before disappearing out of his followers’ sight, saying he was returning to heaven.

In those forty days, Jesus clarified what his death and resurrection were all about. We, mere humans, could never make our way back to our original state, much as we might like to. Our current state ends in death though – permanent separation from our Creator. Jesus showed and taught that God did not want that. He loved us, his creation, too much for that to be left uncorrected. God wanted to restore that relationship, but how? The only way was for Christ, as God, to take our place, take on our fallen state and die in our stead. Jesus and the Apostles after him explained that this miracle was possible through God’s love, mercy and grace. All we had to do was believe this message, accept that what Jesus did to remove our separation from God.

As a young child, I was aware that there were too many times I had failed and disappointed my parents. In those days, it was still customary to get the strap if you were naughty, if you did wrong. I knew my parents did not like to administer that punishment. They told us so. Father would say it hurt him as much as us to have to do this. One evening, I broke down in tears and asked my parents what I needed to do to solve this dilemma. I neither wanted to disappoint them nor hurt them. 

As I think back on this, I think – what a wonderful way to model how God feels towards us. God does not want us to have the consequence of our actions – death – either. He loves us too much to see us disappear from relationship with him in death. After all, he made us to share his love. He also hurts when we do wrong. 

My parents pulled out a Bible and read a couple of verses to us – my younger sister was joining me in this by this time. They were I John 2:1-2: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father (God), Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the world.”

In other words, Jesus had made the ultimate sacrifice for us. Not only that, he was now pleading or case before his father in Heaven. If Jesus was doing that for us, what more could one ask. 

My sister and I accepted these words that evening. We prayed with our parents, acknowledging or unhappy state and felt and believed that God had indeed forgiven us, accepted us back, and that from then on, we were right with God. We had entered into a new relationship with God which is what God wanted all along. That was some sixty-five years ago and I have never looked back. I wish everyone could share this.

Now, if you have read this far, some of you who are skeptic might say – you were a child, what did you know. Indeed, the unspoken question there is why am I still a Christian. That is another story. I hope I get to tell it too. 

WHAT’S IN A NAME

May 27, 2018 our congregation, Peace Mennonite Church in Richmond BC, held a discussion to let members air their thoughts on the idea of a name change for our congregation. Some stubbornly hold to the belief that this discussion is being held because someone or some persons have a hidden agenda towards changing the name of our congregation, that there is a lack of transparency in disclosing this. As someone who is on the council, and in discussion with our leaders and elders, this is not my understanding. 

I do not know of anyone who is introducing this idea because of a plan they have. Neither do I know for certain, I must admit, how this discussion evolved. The only thing I can think of, is that I suspect it came from a comment made by our new pastor, who is not of Mennonite background, that maybe one thing to consider in making possibly necessary changes to help our church grow, would be to drop the name Mennonite. I do not believe it went any further with him or anyone else in leadership subsequent to that. I know some might think me naive in stating this. Be that as it may, even that remark would have been enough to spark some conversations. The leadership/council, aware of these voices, decided it would be better to have an open discussion about the topic. That way we could get the issue out in the open. I think the decision was made to do so, even though some consider it a less than significant subject, because they wanted to avoid exactly what they have been accused of, and that is doing things without discussion. Indeed, it was telling in the pastor’s prayer to open the meeting that he reminded God and the rest of us that we are a congregation who believes in the congregational model of leadership, and who accept also that we are a ‘priesthood of all believers.’ As such, it is only proper to let all the members who wish to speak have a say.

Members were also informed as part of leading up to this discussion that – if they had not already heard - our mother church, First United Mennonite Church (FUMC) in Vancouver, is even farther along in this discussion than we are. They were looking at changing to Peace Church on 52^ndas a possible new name. Aware of our name beginning with Peace, they informed us of these matters. On one hand, this provided some context in bringing forward the reality that we would not be alone in considering this. On the other hand, although our leadership had some misgivings about it, in the end they decided the best course of action was to bring this subject to all of us for our reactions. After some input from the members, one member made a statement which became simply a resolution that we let them go ahead and give them our blessing. This was passed.

If there are any readers who are not familiar with the name Mennonite and its origins, let me provide a brief background. As part of the Christin Church Reformation of the 16th century, there came into being a group known as Anabaptists because many were re-baptized by one another as adults. They did this when they realized consciously that they really wanted to be followers of Jesus Christ as Lord, or Christians. As such, they then did not recognize the validity of the practice in the church of the time of their being baptized as infants, without their knowledge of what was going on, or then their consent.

This movement spread form its beginnings in Switzerland to, among other places, The Netherlands. Here, a priest named Menno Simons came to this understanding about his own baptism and a number of other issues these reformers had with the church. He helped pull together different groups and organized them in their beliefs and practice. Those who followed him were given the name ‘Menists,’ or those who follow Menno – in English: Mennonites. Our congregation belongs to the church denomination that grew out of that beginning.

Over time, our denomination, because of its emphasis on practice or discipleship, became known for its attention to service and issues of justice and peace. Some of this arose over our adherence to the doctrine of separation of church and state and our belief in a non-violent way of life. These aspects of our faith were borne out in communities and people noticed. Since its formation in 1922 in response to the needs of Mennonites in the then USSR as a result of famine, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) has embodied these beliefs internationally in such a way that even more people became familiar with our denomination and what it stood for. Organizations that followed in response to other needs, such as Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS), Mennonite Mutual Aid (MMA), Mennonite Economic Development Association (MEDA) and Mennonite Foundation (now Abundance – they changed their name! as did MCC-developed Supportive Community Services, becoming Communitas) only furthered the positive associations with the name Mennonite.

So, some of our members find that when those in the know of the above find out they are Mennonite, they get a positive response in identifying as such. Others who know of our Anabaptist theology and accept it actually look for Mennonite churches to join when they come to a point in their lives where they are looking to join a church. This is the positive side of things.

Now, at the same time, the name Mennonite has, in the eyes of some, acquired some negative ‘baggage,’ or at least, associations which are felt by some to be hindrances to our denomination’s continued growth. The first of these is that there have been certain groups within the Mennonite fold who have remained in what some would consider a very conservative mode. Some, such as those also known as Amish or Old Order Mennonites, have in many ways remained in the lifestyle of the 16^thcentury, so are seen by other Mennonites, let alone society at large, as very backward. Some even wonder whether they are a sect, as in cult. This is particularly so in the case of large groups who have fled what they consider the increasing encroachment on what they valued by society at large and gone to places like Mexico and Bolivia. They thought that by so doing they could retain their cherished lifestyle and freedom from perceived government intervention.

Because these groups are most obvious by their differences form society at large, they often attract the most media attention. This often then places ‘Mennonite’ in a quite conservative bent, which is not appreciated by the more ‘liberal’ Mennonites. The last feel that this is a hindrance to their ability to reach out to society because they will be dismissed by those who wrongly associate them with these conservative elements. This has been worsened in recent years because, unfortunately, the isolation of these conservative groups has led some of them to really stray from the faith. Some even became involved in drug smuggling, which obviously cast an even larger shadow on the Mennonite name when they were identified as such in the media. This was compounded by a TV series featuring such endeavours but running under the name “Pure!” 

The Caucasian Dutch/Swiss/Germanic ethnic origins of the denomination are now also, in our multi-cultural world, being seen as a hindrance. Indeed, individuals from other backgrounds do often have difficulty finding full acceptance in such congregations. Some who grow up in the ethnic enclaves, as that is what they were historically, want to shun the term Mennonite so as to feel they are part of the larger society. Others, who have no connection to the faith anymore, especially in the arts community, still like to promote the Mennonite identity, as it has developed a certain cachet in that domain, not unlike how our works and supporting theology have given us credibility in the eyes of other.

The Mennonite Brethren have been at the forefront of abandoning the name Mennonite. They have been more zealous and successful in recruiting newcomers to their church, but is it because of omitting Mennonite or other things they have done? Maybe, in our more inclusive society it was the ‘Brethren’ part. Maybe it is their style of worship which has tended to be more contemporary from an earlier time than some of our Mennonite Church-Canada churches. Some will still use simply “MB” in their name or on their buildings. Some dispense with even that. You might find a reference to the denomination if you dig deep into their literature or website.

My wife and I have spoken to a number of newcomers form outside the ethnic fold. Generally, they have no problem with the name. Some profess they don’t know enough about it and its history to offer an opinion. Others say, that’s your name, why change it? As some have said, the name seems to be more of an issue for North American Caucasians than anyone else. So, why are we so hung up about it? 

We know that in The (Global) South, the Third World, The Underdeveloped world – whatever term you apply to non-European and non-North American nations, non-Caucasian Mennonites in these countries now far outnumber those of European descent on a worldwide basis. The name Mennonite did not stop them from joining the Mennonite community. At the same time, in North America, groups of other ethnicities from Congolese and Laotian to Vietnamese and Japanese that have formed as a result of Mennonite connections have incorporated Mennonite into their congregational names. So, overall, Mennonite does not seem to be that much of a barrier to the non-whites.

Given all of the above though, are there other reasons why we might still want to consider a name change. I have been known to say, somewhat facetiously, that Menno Simons would quite possibly be doing the proverbial rollover in his grave if he knew a denomination had taken his name. Indeed, a number of denominational churches, while still sticking with their denominations, have dropped the denominational term from the local congregation name. I could see all of this as trying to get away from sometimes divisive denominationalism. After all, who comes first in our lives – Christ or Menno? Are denominational names sometimes a barrier to unity in The Church? We know that many believers in our time are not concerned with denominations, are not necessarily loyal to any denomination. Now, there can be pros and cons to that, but that I somewhat of a different issue.

We also know that there are a number of seekers, thinkers and writers in other churches and denominations who have discovered Mennonites and Anabaptism. However, these individuals and groups have discerned that what is important about Mennonites and their theology and practice is adequately encompassed in the term Anabaptist. This does signify a broader grouping than just Mennonites, as there are other denominations that espouse Anabaptist theology that are not Mennonite, e.g. Brethren in Christ. It gets away from denominationalism. It allows people of different church backgrounds to adopt ‘our’ theology without giving up their denomination to become Mennonite. And why should they? Are we not happy that those outside the Mennonite fold are seeing the good in Anabaptism, without concerning ourselves with denominational linkage and nomenclature? And who knows how many seekers, whether making real-life contact or on-line, see the name Mennonite and do not give us a second look, thinking this is somehow not for them. Indeed, our own pastor indicated that was his thinking before his eyes were opened.

Ultimately, perhaps we are ourselves at fault for the perception that the name Mennonite is a barrier to some. Maybe we have not done a good enough job of educating our own members, especially those of non-Germanic ethnic backgrounds, but also our own youth, on the history, meaning and value of the name. But is now the time to redouble our efforts in that direction? Or should we rather promote the history, name and value of the overriding Anabaptist label? 

This does not mean we replace Mennonite with Anabaptist.  We can keep the name Mennonite if we wish. But in promoting our theology and practice, we link it to Anabaptist – the broader name – in future educational and informational endeavours rather than label it Mennonite. This can make it less important that the name Mennonite is ultimately seen in our congregational names.

One of our sister churches recently changed its name from Vancouver Chinese Mennonite Church to Peace Church Chinatown (psst – that was my suggestion at a meeting we stumbled into on the idea of the name change. The congregation wanted to be seen as open to non-Chinese, but they wanted to remember their heritage. Chinatown has a broader connotation these days than simply indicating the locale of Chinese. Hence, the name!). We mentioned at the outset the situation at FUMC. Peace is one of the core distinctives of our faith, one that we as Anabaptists (Mennonites) particularly believe in. So, why not use the name Peace to identify that with Church and add other descriptors as we wish, such as our location primarily. Then our congregation could be Peace Church Richmond.

Let me conclude by saying I have no axe to grind. I can live with Mennonite for all it means to me. But I can also live with dropping the word. I will not accept abandoning our Anabaptist theology and practice though, and this seems to be view of our congregation and its leaders too. So, we seem to be ‘safe’ there. I will say that I really do not think it will make much difference if we change our name and do not improve our welcoming stance, our hospitality and focus on forming relationships. Following Christ is about a relationship, not about a name. 

Why I protested Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline twinning to British Columbia

April 28, 2018 I, along with many others of faith, Christian, Muslim, Jewish and even Buddhist, accepted an invitation from our neighbour indigenous folk to join them in their protest the Kinder Morgan project. Indeed, I and two sister Mennonites were the first of our denomination that day to partake in civil disobedient action that could have got us arrested. I believe one should have good reasons for why one would undertake such controversial, in the eyes of some, action, and I also believe I need to share them.

After a lengthy and excellent informed period of orientation, preparation and encouragement by our solicitously appreciative and supportive indigenous hosts and other protest organizers, some of us decided on taking this ‘action’ while others chose to remain as supporters. We all then marched the short distance from the protest camp base at a City of Burnaby soccer field (the City of Burnaby also remains opposed to this expansion of fossil fuel transport and handling in their lands, so they do not seem to dissuade this dissent) to the entrance to the Kinder Morgan tank farm. The three of us mentioned, who had chosen to join the first banner-carrying team of some ten individuals, then stood in the rain for 3 hours in front of the gate to the Kinder Morgan tank farm holding the accepted protest banner while faith leaders spoke in turn and protest songs were sung.

Eventually, after an hour or more, the RCMP, who had arrived some time before this but stayed at a distance, came and read the court injunction forbidding our action and outlining the consequences. We were then given time to decide whether we wanted to go all the way to get arrested or leave. The organizers had said this period of grace was generally ten to fifteen minutes. When the police had not returned for nearly an hour, even the leaders began to wonder what was up. That was when we decided to leave and let those of our team who wished to carry on be augmented by members of the second team to replace us. We had decided at the outset we did not believe we needed to be arrested to make our point and show our solidarity with our co-religionists and the indigenous and other folk who protest the KM project.

When challenged first of all as to as to why I would do this, one of the key reasons is in that first introductory sentence. I am fully aware of the reports that say many First Nations bands have signed agreements with Kinder Morgan to allow the project to go through their lands. However, I have also noticed that we are not hearing much from these groups. I am not sure of the reasons why. I do not want to cast negative aspersions against them, but is it because it is not politically correct for them to speak out on such action? First Nations seem to like to put themselves out there as guarding the land, as seeing it as sacred, so how could they allow this ‘black snake,’ as some refer to it, whose ‘head’ is mostly in the tar sands that have done so much damage to this land, to meander through their lands? Perhaps they are keeping quieter because they do not want to further disunity between First Nations. Some say they signed because they thought it was inevitable that this pipeline would be built and they were no longer going to be denied the potential benefits. I really can’t fault them for this. They finally have some power that enables them to negotiate such thing for themselves, and that is as it should be. I wonder about that though, as, other than perhaps some jobs in the construction phase, but very few jobs in the long run, and probable cash payout upfront, the benefits are slim. I can’t help but wonder though, in an ideal world, whether even those who signed on would rather not have done so because of their basic worldview. We all makes compromise sometimes.

However, I, along with the rest of my interfaith friends who were on Burnaby Mountain that day, have as our particular neighbours nations such as the Musqueam, Squamish and Tseil-Waututh, who continue to be opposed to the project. We simply believe it is appropriate that we need to stand with ourneighbours first. The nations who accepted the risks of the project are not, narrowly speaking, ourneighbours. They live inland, in the north of BC and in Alberta. Our neighbours have suffered just as much at the hands of us settlers as their fellow indigenous neighbours who signed on. Yet, they have their reasons for opposing the project and deserve to be heard just as much as the peoples who accept it. If anything, they may be remaining truer to the generally understood indigenous worldview of the land, so would that not be even more reason to support them?

As to why I would do this as a Christian, who espouse obeying the laws of the land, I believe I have valid reasons for doing so. In the first place, I am an Anabaptist-Mennonite Christian. We were one of the first groups in the 16^thcentury Reformation in Europe to proclaim a belief in separation of church and state. So, we do not always support the actions of the state. The statein Alberta and federally in our land has certainly shown its support for this project. The federal government even wants to use our tax dollars to ensure its completion if the current private enterprise (Kinder Morgan) bails out at the end of this month! As someone opposed to this project here, I find that beyond preposterous. A blank cheque to private enterprise? Subsidizing the fossil fuel enterprise again? This is not social justice which we as Anabaptists believe in.

Furthermore, Christians, in their antipathy to the state in certain areas, have been guilty of civil disobedience from the beginning. Therefore, when we do not agree with the state in its actions because we subscribe to the higher calling of God, we might also be called to civil disobedience. In the KM case, we are protesting the government’s failure to honour commitments to First Nations and their not following their own review procedures for such projects, not to mention not listening to and accepting the objections of a legitimately elected government in our province. As far as the Roman government of the day was concerned, humanly speaking, Jesus was crucified because he was seen as a potential leader of an insurrection against them. The early Christians were killed for their civil disobedience in not worshipping the state gods and the Emperor. Our Anabaptist Mennonite ancestors were killed for their civil disobedience in participating in adult baptism and failing to have their infants baptized, both of which were considered crime against the state. 

Besides all the above, there are other environmental and economic problems with the project. We all use fossil fuels and will for some time to come. So why the haste to sell off our resources to other countries when we can use them in the future? When we have made commitments as a nation to improve the environment, why are we working towards processing more fossil fuel for increased consumption here and abroad, so contributing to more pollution that will more than negate our efforts to lower what contributes to global warming or climate change? Other jurisdictions have not been able to acceptably answer BC’s questions about how we can clean up a spill of diluted bitumen. There is no reassurance that the funding for this will be there. 

Arguments about the safety of transporting dilbit via pipeline versus truck or train are moot points when the above objections have not even been dealt with. And why does Canada continue to export our resources in their rawest form possible instead of - in this instance- doing more to refine the dilbit. Shipping a much more refined product by pipeline and ship would be much more acceptable. Sure, there is a cost to that, but there is also a cost to continuing to exploit and increase the burning of fossils fuels. 

I am not objecting to the project because I think I have all the answers. Perhaps not even because I think this is the only position to take. I object to the present situation for the reasons given. Change the variables and I might no longer object. 

Nor am I objecting as a spokesperson for any organization, not even our church or denomination. To be sure, as a member of Mennonite Church BC’s Indigenous Relations Committee, which answers to the Service, Peace and Justice Committee, of which I am currently chair, we did discuss this action in our meetings. It would have been a denial of our mandate to ignore our First Nations pleas by not talking about this. However, we all agreed we had no authority to speak for our conference, so we speak on our own and accept the consequences on our own. At the same time, we know we have support. There were a number of other members of our denomination on the mountain that day, there to support the protest too.

Telling My Faith Story - I

Telling My Faith Story - I

Okay. I have written at least three posts on "telling our faith stories" - why, why not etc. It is time for me to begin to work on my own story. I am also sharing it here with you. There are many references in the Psalms and elsewhere to telling of the acts of God, his mighty works etc., in the congregation, to the people and to the nations. It is that path I am following here.

I believe in an earlier post I wrote about why I am a Christian that I alluded to my faith heritage as being a factor in that. That is the positive, the blessing, with which I can look back and say my life and my faith pilgrimage started from. I don't know about the faith of my ancestors prior to the Reformation. However, as an Anabaptist Mennonite, I know that I probably come from a pretty good line of faithful ancestors from then till now. I was blessed to have parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts who were mostly staunch members of this faith community in which my roots are. They taught me as much by example as word about it what it means to be a follower of Jesus and to have a relationship with God. There example, their teaching, their prayers - and one can never underestimate that - as well as that of the faith communities to which we belong both guided me as I grew up and kept me from falling into many traps that could have led to more negative outcomes.

If we look at the beginning of my life, my expectant mother (and I) were at her parents’ place, my maternal grandparents, in the Burwalde district in southern Manitoba when she went into labor. There was evidently a snowstorm, it being almost the end of October, which could have had disastrous consequences on the prairies. My mother's family knows from personal experience what happens when neighbors get lost in a snowstorm and freeze to death. However, we made it to the Bethel Hospital in Winkler, 5 miles away.

Then, and I don't know if my mother's physician or she knew this, but I presented for delivery as breech, or feet and rear end first. This in itself can be a dangerous situation, as a baby's head is the biggest part of the body and if the rest is delivered but the head gets stuck, well, you can imagine what could happen. Being a firstborn child added to that risk because who knew how wide my mother's pelvis was going to open. Thirdly, I was being delivered by a family physician in a rural hospital which could also be an issue because they would not have the same training and experience as an obstetrician in larger centers such as Winnipeg, which was over an hour's drive away. Indeed, in those days, it seemed much farther than that. However, rural physicians in those days also became quite accomplished in some of these areas simply through necessity and experience.

So, things worked out and I was delivered all right. Then, some two months later, I guess when I was deemed old enough to travel, mother and I set out on the return trip to join my father many miles to the north in Oxford House, Manitoba. Grandfather, mother and I took the train to the place where we would catch a plane to the community to which we were headed. When the aircraft finally took off from this place, The Pas, it needed to make a stop in Norway House. I almost met a premature end there because the pilot mistakenly at first thought that the people that were waving evergreen branches were welcoming him down to a landing strip on the frozen lake. Actually, they were trying to drive him away, because that was an area where they had just been cutting ice to use for storage and whatever had frozen over after that, would not have supported our aircraft. We landed safely farther away.

The next big event where I would say I remember God's hand being on our family was some six years later. Our youngest brother, not even six months old, was not doing well. We were then living in Grand Rapids, still an isolated community at the mouth of the Saskatchewan River and Lake Winnipeg. We were fortunate enough to get an aircraft to fly mother and Lloyd to St. Anthony's Hospital at the Pas, where they diagnosed that he had what they described as a large cyst on his kidney.

Our whole family then went down to Winnipeg, where Lloyd was operated on to remove this cyst, which resulted in him losing one kidney as well. This was done at St. Boniface Hospital by a Dr. McNamara, I believe, and it was evidently the first time such surgery had been performed in Manitoba on an infant. Lloyd's life was spared again within the year when our family was enjoying some tobogganing on our riverbank on a cold winter day. We were all walking back to the top of the hill after a run when we noticed Lloyd was nowhere to be seen. We looked around and there was his snowsuit-hooded head bobbing in our open waterhole. In those days, we got our water from the river by keeping a hole open in the ice. We grabbed him from that freezing water and rushed him into the house, stripped him and warmed him up and he was all right.

It was around that time, and I am not sure of the exact dates or whether I was six or seven-years-old. Our parents regularly read stories from the Bible or other Christian materials to us at bedtime before they said our night-time prayers with us. I don't know what triggered my behavior on this one particular evening. However, I remember breaking down in tears and crying because of my awareness of my own sinfulness. Our parents comforted me with the words of First John 2:1 and 2: “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." Our parents explained this to me and told me what I could do to set things right between me and God with a prayer to him and I decided to do this. My sister decided she wanted to do the same, and we both were "born again" that evening.

I can say, that since that time, no matter what has come my way in my life, no matter what questions might have come up in my mind, God has kept me from straying from the path that he helped set me on that day, and for that I give him thanks. Of course, I am also thankful to my parents and all those around me who had influenced me by that time and continue to do so for their role in helping keep me in The Way since then.

Twenty Principles We Can Derive from the Old Testament of the Bible

XI. A. Recap: what did we learn from the Old Testament?

 HOW DID WE GET HERE? OUR^* CHURCH IN THE 21^ST CENTURY

*Mennonite/Anabaptist

The Story of the Bible Becomes the Story of Our Church

2016 11 13 Review

If I were to ask you, what are some of the key things that concern you as a member of your church today I think one of them would be, How do we do church? Another would be, How do we turn seekers into disciples? We might also ask, What does it mean to be the people of God, the Church?

Now, there are others in our modern world who are concerned with these topics and have even written books and give speeches and hold workshops and conferences, teach courses, on contemporary applications of them. However, sometimes I think we do well to look at the past and see how things were done then, what worked then.

When I started teaching the class which forms the background to these blog installments, one of my aims was to re-visit the origins of the people of God, the church, going all the way back to the beginning, to creation. Then I wanted to move forward through time, coming eventually to focus particularly on the Reformation and the Anabaptist/Mennonite branch of Christianity of which I am a member and how it fits into the big picture.

From January to June 2016, we completed a survey of the Old Testament. We learned some key concepts of what God was doing with his people, how he created this group and what he gave them. These were reviewed in our first class of Season II held at Peace Mennonite Church on November 13, 2016 and are summarized in 20 points below.

Now, we want to learn what was changed or added to this in the New Testament and subsequently. Since June, I have been led by the Spirit, I believe, to a number of readings on what happened in The Early Church after the New Testament era. This has been most enlightening and I think has a lot to offer us as to the answers of those questions we spoke of above. Some of what we will learn might surprise us.

I would invite you again to come and join in this exploration of what was happening with the people of God in the New Testament, and what is happening with them up until today.

From last January to June [2016], some of you attended Season I of this series, in which we went through the Old Testament from Genesis to the Malachi. As you will recall, the purpose of these classes was:

1.    To trace the fundamental principles that the Bible introduces in terms of what it means to be the people of God, or as we now often also refer to ourselves, the church.

2.    A second purpose was to try and see what in the Old Testament spoke to the New Testament teachings of Jesus and the apostles that we as Anabaptists in particular

have taken as instruction for what it means to be the church, the people of God. In the Old Testament, of course, the people of God largely referred to The Children of Israel, or the Jews or Hebrews.

I wanted to be clear to the student and reader that I am not saying that what I am putting forth is the only understanding or interpretation of all of this material. I'm always open to your contributions and insights. The Bible is interpreted by all of us together as a community. That is another Anabaptist or Mennonite viewpoint. That is because we believe that we all have the Holy Spirit living within us, if we are Christians, and we understand that the Holy Spirit played a role in providing us this Bible, and therefore in helping us understand it now.

Now, we will turn our attention to the New Testament, and ultimately, to the history of the church after the New Testament. We will look at the same concepts we learned in Season I as well as see if there are any really entirely new concepts introduced in the New Testament and possibly even subsequently. Before we did that though, especially since it has been a number of months since we ended Season I, and because not all of you were not able to attend all of the classes, we did do a review.

I should say that in this review, we will not be referring that much if at all to any specific biblical passages. We did a lot of that in every lesson last year and will continue to do that once we get into the New Testament. So, let us look at where I believe we have come so far, before we move on.

1.    There is one God.

2.    Everything begins with God.

3.    God created everything.

4.    God created everything in order.

5.    God created everything good, as in beautiful.

6.    God also created everything different. Not only is there incredible diversity, no one unit is like another.

7.    God created mankind in his image.

8.    God created us to be in relationship with him and one another.

9.    God created us because of his love and desire for fellowship with us.

10. God is Love.

11. Man made a poor choice and God's perfect creation was spoiled by sin.

12. God was ready with Plan B, offering man away out of what he had fallen into.

13. God is our Redeemer. He redeems individuals and their cultures and will someday redeem the world.

14. God calls individuals to be a new people set apart from this fallen world.

15. God makes covenants and keeps his promises.

16. God is Faithful.

17. God gave The Law to show people what was expected of them in terms of their behavior.

18. God gave instructions as to what was expected in terms of worship.

19. God gave instructions in regards to building a place of worship.

20. God makes accommodations for humans in their weakness, e.g. allowing divorce, allowing his people to have a king, and a temple in their capital city.