The Blanket Exercise

The Blanket Exercise

On a late Saturday afternoon in the beginning of May about 50 individuals gathered in the basement of the St. James Anglican Church in East Vancouver for a Blanket Exercise. As I said in an announcement I had read in our own congregation, The Blanket Exercise is not a session on learning about native protocol in giving blankets, which is a tradition among a number of the First Nations, particularly here on the West Coast of Canada. It is rather an occasion to experience in a graphic way what indigenous peoples went through over the last 400 years since the colonizers, the immigrants, the settlers, first Europeans and later others, came to the Americas. This was an event put on by the BC Anglican Diocese with the help of their Indigenous Justice Ministries Coordinator, Brander McDonald, who also serves in a similar capacity for Mennonite Church BC, so it was also promoted for MC-BC. The exercise was developed by KAIROS Canada (http://www.kairoscanada.org/dignity-rights/indigenous-rights/blanket-exercise/) and some of their team were also involved.

In some ways, this particular gathering was organized after the fashion of the once-banned traditional West Coast potlatch. This meant it began with a welcome by an indigenous Elder. This is a practice that, in my experience over the last decade, is much more common in British Columbia than in most of the rest of Canada, as these lands were mostly not covered by treaties and therefore unceded, not relinquished to the settlers, and can still be claimed as their land by the First Nations. Thus, they have the right, if they so choose, to welcome us. This was followed by an introduction of "the family," in other words, the hosts of the potlatch. In this case, these were significant individuals involved in organizing the event, including some indigenous persons.

Then, we were given instructions for participation in the blanket exercise. There were some 20 blankets of a great variety spread out over the floor inside the large circle in which we sat. We were invited to step onto the blankets and mill around, interacting with one another as we wished, signifying the movement of First Nations peoples prior to and with the arrival of settlers. As we did so, a series of readings were read by various narrators and participants. Some of these were quotations from First Nations speakers. Most summarized historical developments in the settlement of Canada and the changes that have taken place in the relationship between first England, the Crown, and then the Government of Canada.

Some individuals were given file cards of different colors and the significance of these was uncovered as the story unfolded. Some cards stood for those who were killed off by the white men, such as all the First Nations in Newfoundland. Some stood for those unfortunate children who died in residential school. There was a telling moment when all those who represented children in residential schools were told to move off onto one blanket by themselves. Then they were invited to join the larger group but the remaining members of the larger group were told to turn their backs on them, signifying the alienation that they had felt when they returned, often as strangers, to their own communities after years away having their identity stripped of them. Other cards indicated those who died from smallpox and other diseases.

The reading accompanying this activity also included a litany of increasingly controlling and restrictive legislation. The impact of that was that the blankets kept getting rolled up and in fact disappearing. The result was that the surviving participants representing both settlers and indigenous people found themselves in very close quarters. To be sure, there were more positive moments when developments allowed for the blankets to be rolled back out, but always there was the caution, "not too much." One of these times was when the Government of Canada, represented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, read the official apology to First Nations peoples in 2008 for what Canada had done to them in the residential schools.

Participants had been cautioned at the beginning that this could be a trying and moving experience for some, and that there was counseling support available if this happened. After the readings were all done and the blankets were shrunk to as small an area as all of that required, we all broke into smaller circles with a facilitator to reflect on what the experience had meant for us and what we might take away from it to others. This is where we found that for some, the experience had become quite uncomfortable. Some First Nations participants in particular, finding themselves standing uncomfortably closer to immigrants then normal personal space would allow, found the experience somewhat unsettling, realizing it reflected a sad reality that their peoples have experienced over time as they were displaced from their lands by the often hostile and not-understanding immigrants.

After the sharing circles had come to a close, everyone joined the large circle again and the host family gave out gifts. This was what happened at Potlatch. Indeed, it was generally the custom for the hosting family to give away everything. Gifts could not be refused either. Finally, the guests would all be invited to share a meal, which was what happened here as well. Of course, traditionally, this would have been presented as a most sumptuous feast, where the host would have served their all and their best.

If you ever get the chance to take part in an exercise like this, I would encourage you to do so. You will be struck in a very moving and graphic way by what we as non-indigenous people have done to our totally undeserving and, in fact, mostly welcoming, at least to begin with, First Nations peoples. As was also pointed out by one of the participants in our group, even today, just as to an extent with the indigenous people of South Africa, after apartheid was over, it is the indigenous people here who have been reaching out to offer us forgiveness for what we have done, looking for reconciliation, pleading at the same time for us to listen to what they have experienced at our hands. As was read in the first quote of the exercise, from Dene Elder George Erasmus of the Northwest Territories, co-chair of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: “Where common memory is lacking, where people do not share in the same past, there can be no real community. Where community is to be formed, common memory must be created.”

We will not become one people in this country, a community, until we learn fully what our shared history is, acknowledge it, and reconcile with one another. Indeed, I personally believe that God can never fully bless the church in this land as he would like, until we lead in the way in this. That is the challenge for us. Mennonite Church B.C. members had a chance to participate in one of these events organized by our Indigenous Relations Coordinator, Brander McDonald, at Emmanuel Mennonite in Abbotsford in April of this year, but the event had to be canceled because of apparent lack of interest. I sincerely hope we can raise enough interest in these matters to schedule another one. We still have a ways to go.

Lorne Brandt, 2015-5-2

A Rock to Build on or Stumble on - A reflection on Matthew 16:13-23

This is the season of Lent and we are 4 weeks away from Easter. A week ago I took a partial fast and spent time beginning to review Jesus' final journey to his death in Jerusalem. These last events in his life are so momentous that they take up almost half of some of the Gospels.

The way I see it, this journey begins after Jesus has taken his disciples as far north in Palestine as he probably ever did, to the region of Ceasarea-Philippi, and then Mount Hermon, which I believe is Israel's tallest mountain. Commentators note how significant this was because of what happened here in  this area of great Greek influence. There were shrines to the Greek shepherd god Pan in caves in the hillsides here, along with many large Greek buildings in the cities in this area of northern Galilee, including temples King Herod had built and dedicated to the Roman god Roma and the Emperor Augustus. In other words, in some ways, he was moving away from the safety (?) of God-fearing Galilee into heathen “enemy” territory.

It is here that Jesus asks his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man (meaning himself) is?" They give him some answers but then he asks them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter is the one to give the famous answer, "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God."

Jesus, knowing his time was coming, doubtless also knew he needed his disciples to know who he was if they were going to be able to carry on his mission. In the Gospel according to Luke, this exchange is placed after comments on King Herod's wondering who Jesus was. In the Gospel according to John it is placed in the context of a number of his followers abandoning him because they could no longer accept everything he was saying. He then asks the 12 disciples if they too will leave and Peter says they have nowhere else to go because they “have come to know and believe that [he has] the words of eternal life and [is] the holy one of God, the Messiah."

Then Jesus, knowing that the majority do not recognize him for whom he is and the potential for misunderstanding if he allows himself to be identified as the Messiah, sternly warns the disciples not to tell others that he is the Messiah.

Only in the gospel according to Matthew is Peter's confession followed by his receiving a blessing from Jesus. He changes his name from Simon to Peter, which in Greek means "rock." He then also says he will build the church on this rock and adds 3 statements about it: 1) the gates of Hades (hell) will not prevail against it, 2) they would be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and 3) whatever they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven whatever they bind on earth would be bound in heaven. Over time, The Church, especially what would become the Roman Catholic Church after the 4th century, has used this passage to undergird its authority and power. Some link this talk of loosing and binding to forgiveness and church membership and even practices such as banning, sunning and excommunication.

Then Jesus begins to tell his disciples about how he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders, chief priests and scribes and be killed and raised again on the 3rd day. Peter, perhaps flush with having come up with such a great answer just before this, and feeling even closer and more loyal to Jesus as a result of what he might have perceived as his new standing in Jesus eyes, rebuked him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you." Jesus in turn, says to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." Whereas Jesus had just called Peter a rock in a positive foundational sense, he now calls him a stumbling block for seeing things through a human lens. Knowing what he was going to go through, Jesus did not need to be tempted by his own followers to the contrary. How difficult it must have been to move from that wonderful mutual acknowledgment of his identity to now being challenged with respect turning aside from future activities that Jesus knew would come about precisely because of who he is, and which actually included the fulfillment of his mission on earth.

Indeed, this has been the weakness of The Church ever since. As a human organization, we naturally strive for self-preservation. This self-centeredness, sometimes overt maintenance of power and control, taking Matthew 16:19 too far is indeed a stumbling block to many, who reject Christianity precisely because the church falls into that trap, the temptation of Satan to usurp power for ourselves. The divine way, as Jesus was about to gloriously demonstrate, is to trust fully in the power of God, be totally obedient to his plan, even if that means giving up everything including our earthly lives. Indeed, this is precisely what Jesus then expands on and clarifies in the subsequent passage (Matthew 16:24-26).

The ultimate understanding of what Jesus is saying in this passage is what too much of Christendom has failed to grasp after the bloom of the first 3 centuries of the church wore off. Instead of the purity, poverty and humility that were seen as virtues then, the church no longer remained the pure bride for Jesus but has too often become the harlot of politics, power and money. As the Dark Ages moved into the Middle Ages and the Period Of (so-called by Eurocentric whites) Discovery, the church abandoned its hope of a place in God's future redeemed earth for its support of imperialism and colonialism which placed the church, not Jesus, as even the many indigenous believers who suffered at the hands of the colonialists will attest, in a bad place in the minds of non-Europeans around the world, including our own First Nations neighbors in Canada.

Indeed, the church has too often focused on the rock as a place, which quickly leads to ideas of edifices, organization and land. This is where the church loses The Way. A rock sitting in a place will definitely be something that can be stumbled over. But Jesus had spoken about the rock as a person, a person who knew who Jesus is. The true Church is the body of persons who knows who Jesus is, a body of persons on The Way. If we know whom we are following our rock-like faith will carry us through. If we stop moving forward, not really following, we again become stumbling blocks. To modify an old proverb, we need to be “the rolling stones that gather no moss.”

A Life Well Lived

I went to a funeral today. At least that's what they used to call it. Maybe it is not appropriate to call it that anymore because there was no casket; the body had been interned 2 hours previously. So these events have become called Memorial Services. Or Celebrations of Life.

Well, today's event was indeed a joyous celebration. However, the deceased would probably have been somewhat uncomfortable at all the attention he got, but who knows? It was certainly deserved. To borrow another common expression, his was indeed "a life well lived."

The event celebrated the life of our Great Uncle Bill, formally known as William E Thiessen. As even one of his 3 sons noted, no one knew what E stood for. One speaker who had known him in his younger days said he had adopted it because he thought made him look more distinguished! Perhaps what he really wanted to do was distinguish himself from other William Thiessens. I know my maternal grandfather added the letter M between his first and last name for that purpose, to distinguish himself from other Frank Ennses. In days gone by people were not given the multi-handled names they have nowadays.

But this is the same uncle of whom we saw pictures playing a guitar and tuba taken in his Bible school days, but which he had confessed to a friend were only taken to impress his wife-to-be! He never knew how to play either instrument.

Bill was an individual born to a mother who died months later of the Spanish flu in 1919. Some members of his family revealed today that this was something that had bothered him all his life of 96 years, never knowing his mother. Indeed, nowadays mental health professionals might wonder what kind of attachment problems he had developed and how suitable he would be in relationships. They might look at his career as a pastor and his family relationships from children down to great-grandchildren and think that the affirmation he seemed to give to everyone he met was a sign of neediness based on that past, looking for love and affirmation.

We know better. It was the sign of a man totally given in the service of a Master he loved dearly. The Master was none other than Jesus Christ. We are enjoined in Scripture to imitate Christ. Indeed, Uncle Bill, as everyone knew him, did just that. One can only imagine that the way he made everyone who knew him feel must only be a taste of the way Jesus made those around him feel when he walked this earth.

Bill understood that he was who he was because of those who had gone on before, the great "cloud of witnesses" referred to in Hebrews chapter 12. He appreciated that legacy and did his best to pass it on. Indeed, as his descendants were reminded today, what they enjoyed is because of who he was. Even the Old Testament tells us that God “punishes the sins of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation,” but for “those who are righteous and faithful to him, he blesses them for thousands of generations.”

It saddens me to see how many of our generation have turned their backs on this wonderful legacy that goes back for centuries if not millennia. Who do we think we are that we know better than all those who came before and no longer need to fear (and here I'm using the positive biblical definition of this term, not the vernacular' being afraid') God?

The geography of our large country having the impact that it does on our mobile and extended families nowadays, even though my father had essentially grown up with Uncle Bill as a brother (they are only 2 years apart in age), I did not really get to know and appreciate the man for who he was until we moved to BC and a 45-minute drive away nearly 10 years ago now. The only time I really recall meeting him before was when our family had stayed at his place over the weekend and attended the church with him that he pastored in Linden, Alberta, when we were on our way to visit her grandparents in BC and attend one of our uncles' weddings. I really have no other memories of that event.

But when we met him here in BC, when he was already in his late 80s, we experienced what so many shared today. This man, who carried his Bible with him almost till he died, and always told everyone that he was praying for them, had a most special way of giving you his attention in such a warm enthusiastic way that you could not help but be attracted to him. Again, I say, what a reflection of his Master. Even my wife, coming from a different culture as she does, was truly taken by him. Often when we would make a trip to the Fraser Valley, it was prefaced by a call to him to see if he wanted to join us for lunch or dinner or come with us to some event we were attending. Indeed, our uncles and aunts always included him in our gatherings, particularly when he was pretty much the only one left of his generation and already a widower. Knowing how many people he knew and how little he really knew us, and for how short a time, I would usually remind him whom I was when I called. You could just hear the recognition and see the smile on his face, as he would brightly inquire about how we were. Indeed, as it was said today, he was one of those saints whom when you went to visit, even when he was in hospital for the last time, would end up cheering you up and praying for you, when you had thought you had gone to do the same for him.

Uncle Bill, you have gone to your reward. May we be be faithful to carry on imitating your Master as wonderfully as you did.

Thinking Biblically about Real Estate

As noted in my previous posting by date, our congregation is currently traversing the Bible in a year and we are presently still in the first 5 books of the Old Testament. I touched on a number of the themes in these passages in the previous posting and here I want to write about land, real estate and even about rights as it pertains to this topic. Contrary to what is preached by those purveyors of the so-called "prosperity gospel" that is all-too prevalent in our continent, especially south of the border, I don't think there is anything here to promote capitalism and acquisition of wealth. Come to think of it, our current government in Ottawa seems to be quite pre-occupied with that as well.

One could write a lot on that topic itself, although it is somewhat of a digression from what I am speaking about here. Let me just say that my understanding of the blessings that God promises to those believe in him has nothing to do with property or wealth. It has everything to do with properties of the mind, heart and soul, the fruits of the spirit: character, that is all. The abundant life promised us is a life overflowing with peace and joy, not possessions and status.

I was just thinking about writing this when I discovered that our pastor is going to be speaking about this next Sunday, February 8, 2015. It will be interesting to see what he has to say. In our congregation we are currently utilizing a practice where our small groups are encouraged to study the pastor's Sunday message and associated passages either before and/or after the message is delivered. Therefore, I also see one question in the preparation phase that addresses an issue that I believe must be part of this discussion and that is, who owns the land?

In our North American and Canadian context, this issue of land ownership is especially pertinent. This is because we as a nation, speaking for Canada at least, are embroiled in difficult discussions with the indigenous inhabitants of this land because we have quite different views of land ownership. Our government, based on democratic principles as honed in the British system over the centuries, believes in private property in conjunction with certain property rights.

Our indigenous peoples have never believed in land ownership. They believe that the land is for everyone to share and is in effect owned by The Creator, which is their title for the Supreme Being we refer to in English as God. A couple of paragraphs back I noted that our pastor referred to a passage that suggests ultimate land ownership is God's (Exodus 15:13, 17). More on this soon.

There are at least 4 different passages/stories that I want to refer to in developing my thoughts on this topic.

The first that we come across in reading these books is the whole concept of the Year of Jubilee. This is spelled out in Leviticus chapter 25:8-34, with a few more details with respect to specific situations added in verses 47-55. The general idea is that, because the land belongs to God, which is clearly stated in verse 23, which adds that the Children of Israel are “but aliens and tenants," the land is to be given a rest again, as it is completing the 7th of the 7-year sabbatical cycles (see below). Not only that, it is been to be returned to whoever may have bought it during that 49 year period of time. God's reasoning for this is that it is not land that is being sold, but "the number of harvests that are being sold to you" (Verse 16). Again, he reassures the people that if they obey this, they will get such good crops in the 6th year that the can live on them for the following 3 years!

However, although houses in villages in the countryside are included in this, houses in walled cities are not. If they have not been redeemed within a year of their sale, they will "pass in perpetuity to the purchaser, throughout the generations; it shall not be released in the Jubilee." So, I'm not quite sure what that would say to our current urban real estate markets.

Another thing that was supposed to happen in the year of Jubilee is that slaves were to be released if they so wished. The details of what to do if they were released or not are what is referred to in the latter verses of the chapter. In any case, all of this certainly goes against acquisition of large tracts of land and the amassing of wealth that could be related to that. However, it seems to apply more to the agrarian setting than urban, so, again, how do we understand this for our towns and cities?

The 2nd section of significance that I want to refer to here is how the division of land is spelled out for when the people enter the Promised Land. It is allotted according to the population of the tribe, and that was the way it was to stay. I am not sure what the ramifications of that would have been if one tribe significantly outgrew a smaller neighboring tribe in number (Interestingly, this is spoken to somewhat in Joshua 17:14-18 when the tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph, complains that the land given them is too small). However, again, I believe this speaks to a general principle of fairness and justice. This is discussed in Leviticus 26:52-56. Here it is stated that "to a large tribe you are to give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance; every tribe should be given its inheritance according to its enrollment." The land was to be apportioned by lot.  In chapter 32 particular reference is made to the tribes of Reuben, Dan and Manasseh who wanted to take good ranch land east of the Jordan River because they were tribes with cattle, and in their passage through this land on the way to the Jordan, which they would eventually cross, they found it to their liking. The actual details of how the land was apportioned to the 12 tribes is not spelled out until Joshua chapters 13-19, after the Children of Israel had crossed the Jordan River into the promised land.

As I referred to in my previous blog installment's title, God does not forget the details. In Deuteronomy 19:14, he warns that landowners should not move boundary markers to enlarge their property.

A further development of this theme that goes against acquisition of wealth does not even require people to wait 50 years. According to Deuteronomy 15, any debt was to be forgiven every 7th year, at least when it pertained to members of the community, i.e. the People of Israel. This rule is accompanied by the reassuring promise in verse four that "there will be no one in need among you because the Lord is sure to bless you in the land that the Lord God is giving you as a possession to occupy, if only you will obey the Lord your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you today." In the same passage, God warns the people that they should not begin to think along the lines of how close they were to the 7th year and make judgments about debt on that basis, i.e. not lending something that was going to be repaid perhaps a year later. As it says in verse 9-10: " your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and all that you undertake."

Indeed, not only where they to forgive debts in the 7th year, they were to set their slaves free, again, at least if they were Hebrew. Indeed, not only were they to set them free, they were to "provide liberally" "the bounty with which the Lord your God has blessed you, remembering that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; for this reason I leave this commandment upon you today" (Versus 12-18) Again, God promises to bless them if they do so. They were not to leave their freed slaves without anything to live on before they could re-establish themselves.

Thirdly, there is the interesting story of the daughters of Zelophehad, which begins in Numbers 27. A man died leaving 5 daughters but no sons. In those days, it was established that property was passed down through the sons. These sisters were brave enough to come to Moses and the other leaders of the people and say that it was not fair that they would not get their father's land as an inheritance when there were no sons in the family. Moses brought this matter to the Lord and was told that, "the daughters of Zelophehad are right." As a result, God instituted the method of passing on inheritance in this situation in considerable detail in verses 8-11 of this chapter. I am not going to spend much more time on property inheritance, but if these rules were still followed, it might save a lot of grief in families with respect to execution of wills and passing on of inheritance.

This story takes another twist in Numbers 36 when the heads of the clan to whom these daughters belong come to Moses with the concerned that these daughters may marry and then males who may not be of their tribe will end up with their property, particularly in the year of the Jubilee. The solution given for this at the time is that these daughters must marry within the tribe so that the land stays within the clan or tribe. I think this also underscores what I believe to be the principle that God was trying to teach us through the whole Jubilee process. God had given the tribes each a certain amount of land according to their size, and this was essentially not to change. Again, it goes against anybody increasing their portion of land, even a tribe. I could see that as having ramifications for nations trying to increase their size as well.

In any case, I wonder what it would do to our economic system and our method of handling property if we paid more attention to some of these rules. I think it could be quite literally liberating, as the Year Of Jubilee was to be.