“The Times they are a'changin... and so are we"
Introduction I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this unique event and commend the planners for their Vision and courage in staging this forum. During our retirement years many of us are involved in reviewing the events of our lives, at least for ourselves. In this process of engaging in life-review we seek to name the influences that have shaped or re-shaped us, and also strive to make some assessment of the present and our place in it. I am grateful for several things: one, that life has not been static but demanding and exciting, and two, that life is a continuous process of learning, changing and hopefully maturing. While it is somewhat intimidating to share such reflections in the larger community of faith that has nurtured me, I do so in the hope that what is personally self-disclosing may serve as a catalyst for others to consciously dialogue with themselves and others about the direction of our lives and the expression of our faith. The Context is Change Let's begin by thinking briefly about how it used to be in our relatively closed communities - life was of one piece, faith-based, a cohesive unit, in which all things were harmonized into an integrated system in which faith, culture, social expectations and morals were supported by family, church and community. Conformity was valued, nonconformity was not (as in Fiddler on the Roof); tradition was held high, social change was slow; individuals were expected to conform to the community's expectations and not "rock the boat"; those who were on the fringes were shunned, tolerated or forced to leave (as in The Scarlet Letter, or in the Hutterite experience. Assumptions and expectations were internalized through socialization in family, school and community life, and through explicit teaching in home, school, church and community. Important things were mostly taught by religious leaders in an authoritarian manner, not dialogically; leaders knew the truth and they were prepared to tell it and to enforce it on everyone for the sake of social cohesion. Discipline was used to help people conform, social ostracization was a threat to all who would venture outside the boundaries. Attitudes toward the outside world were predominantly “we vs them.” Outsiders were often viewed with suspicion or disdain, (they are not one of us) and this meant we did not associate freely with persons from the outside. We sought to protect ourselves from the influence of the outside world by maintaining boundaries between us and them. Each addition, each intrusion from the outside was cautiously evaluated as to its potential negative impact on the shared life of the community. Often-used texts were: ,,in the world but not of the world,"(John 15:19) or ,,do not be conformed to the world" (Romans 12:1-2) or, ,,Do not love the world or the things of the world - the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride in riches" (1 Jn 2:15-17) It would be interesting to see how many can remember a sermon in the last decade on any one of these texts. I don't recall hearing anyone speak about nonconformity. Is this one of the signs that we have assimilated? That we have perhaps been engulfed by our culture and its values? Characteristics of our current cultural context 1. SECULARIZATION
2. PLURALISM
3. RELATIVISM
4. INDIVIDUALISM
5. AFFLUENCE
6. MOBILITY
7. MEDIA
Our culture has left its mark on each of us, probably more than we realize. We've been swept along by cultural forces and technological changes we did not always recognize nor understand. One thing is certain - we have all been affected by change. Now I want to speak more personally about several key issues, and the changes as I have experienced them. Congregational life As a teenager I grew up in the context of Bethel Mennonite Church, (after
1945). I graduated from the MEI in 1953.Bethel was our primary nurturing
community - both socially and spiritually. Within its embrace we learned
about our faith heritage and many of us came to a personal faith in God
through Jesus Christ through the efforts of our families and the congregation.
They believed that "mortals do not live by bread alone" and so they committed
themselves, in addition to working very hard on their farms, to provide
facilities, opportunities and settings for worship and Christian education
for themselves and for their families.
I recall the catechism instruction - very structured (the question and answer Katechismus), with no discussion in the group, or with the minister one-on-one during the months we took the classes. Discuss ion of faith issues in our home was rare. I remember the day or so before my baptism, my mother asked me, “Do you know what you're doing?" The baptism and communion services were known for their solemnity. The transition from German to English was a contentious issue in the late 50s. That's how I ended up becoming a preacher - through the side door of five minute, English talks within a German service. And I remember one man getting up and walking out whenever I got up to speak - because of the English and the fact that I, not yet ordained, used the pulpit. Worship services were formal in every sense and there was no humor. Everyone knew that “Sunday best" was to be worn in church. Singing was from the Gesangbuch mit Anhang or the Evangeliums Liederbuch. Not too many years ago I attended a morning service with baptisms at Bethel Mennonite. The pastor wore a Sports jacket, shirt and tie, the associate pastor wore a yellow shirt and tie, without a jacket; after each testimony and baptism there was a round of applause. I was sure the "Aeltester" who baptized me in 1951 was turning over in his grave. On such solemn occasions he had worn a black topcoat as well as high leather boots. Christian Education Through the efforts of Sunday school teachers, we received a solid background in biblical stories. The curriculum was Biblische Geschichten, with life applications according to the interest of the particular teacher. We memorized Scripture, both in SS and in DVBS. In youth class we took turns leading, providing input. Since then we have gone through a variety of curricula provided by the denomination or by interdenominational publishers. Evangelistic services were held annually in our church. Evangelism was
for public discourse - rarely in the privacy of a home or in one-on-one
conversation. The evangelistic message that was preached aimed for a memorable
conversion.
During my two years at MEI I heard many testimonies of datable conversions by fellow students, but I was never able to identify with that. As a result I was confused and unsure whether I was a believer or not. Informal surveys indicate that only about one-third of adults can point to a conversion date. I regret that we never heard about Timothy’s gradual step-by-step conversion experience. Timothy would probably not have been able to say "on such and such a day I accepted the Lord." This equally valid model of coming to faith would have saved me and a lot of others a lot of confusion during our formative years. Our efforts in Christian education will need to address increasing biblical illiteracy even among those who grow up in Christian homes and in the context of our congregations. A Presbyterian scholar, James D. Smart, addressed this issue in his book, The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church. More recently, books like How to Read the Bible for all its Worth (Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart) and The Bible Makes Sense (Walter Brueggemann) tackle the same issues. One of the challenges in our churches will be to train volunteer teachers both in pedagogical method and in an enriched understanding of biblical theological issues. This may well mean that we employ educational methods similar to the ones used in the school systems - conversation, dialogue, engagement with culture, sound-bytes and visuals. I also believe that pastors will need to see their preaching and teaching responsibilities as providing foundational approaches in terms of the use of scripture. It may be useful for pastors to outline a three or four year program of teaching the Bible. Ethics and morality In the area of ethics and morality, we have moved from certainty to ambiguity, from dogmatism to mindless tolerance, from clarity about nonconformity to ambivalence, from separation from the world to unthinking and unchallenged assimilation (“Well, that's the way things are nowadays"). In those days ethical issues were black and white. People were utterly sincere, but in retrospect they were sincerely wrong on a number of counts. (While I say this I recognize that in 60 years people may say the same thing about me.) You were ‘in the world' or not according to a set of key issues: makeup, movies, cards, drinking, dancing. Being worldly was the worst kind of sin, being self-righteous or prejudiced was not often named. Supposedly, everything was based on the Bible. There was no room for latitude. Those who tested the boundaries, were isolated and avoided. Fit in or ship out! I raised some of these issues in a sermon in the early 60"s and got into trouble for it. I preached on the short-sighted usher (James 2) I gave some examples of how we continued to do today what they were doing then, judging according to outer appearances - and the next day the pastor called to say that the phone lines were “getting warm." I asked why and he said, it was because of my sermon and I should come to a meeting of the “Lehrdienst” that evening. I was being called to account. I was greeted by this group of solemn deacons and ministers and I was asked to recant what I had said in the sermon on Sunday, since people were objecting to my examples - lipstick, praying without folded hands, etc. I said I wasn’t prepared to do that but wanted a chance to preach the sermon again on Sunday to clarify an obvious misunderstanding. They finally agreed. Somehow the people were able to understand it better the second time. Leaders were very sure about matters such as divorce and remarriage. In the early 60's a woman in our church fell in love and asked the minister if they could be married. When it came out that he had been divorced, the answer was clear, repent of your sin and leave this man. No consideration was given to the fact that his former wife had left with another man after three days of marriage. In the early 70's when I was pastor in Winnipeg, Canada's Divorce Act was changed and many couples had other reasons for filing for divorce than adultery. In response to that development and the number of requests for remarriage of divorced persons, we undertook a study of the biblical materials and also considered the issue from the perspective of pastoral care. As a result our church accepted a procedure that our ministers would follow when such requests came their way. One of the realities that dawned on us was that if close to one-third of all couples divorced and if the church said we would not deal with this issue, then we were in fact excluding them from hearing the good news of the gospel! Was this in harmony with Jesus' Spirit and teaching, “Come unto me, all you who are burdened…?" Our rigid pastoral practice in dealing with cases of divorce and remarriage was rooted in our dogmatic security that claimed we knew for sure what the Bible had to teach us on this or any issue. In our searching for answers we realized that we had taken those verses seriously that supported our traditional view, and conveniently overlooked other passages (like Deut 24:1-4, and 1 Cor 7:10-16). We also realized that already within the bounds of the New Testament there had been progression regarding this matter (compare Matthew and Mark on who can initiate divorce, [husband only or wife as well] and take seriously Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul makes a distinction between matters on which he had a direct word from the Lord and other matters on which he gives his own opinion, to the rest I say, not the Lord.') We sought to affirm the sanctity of marriage (one man, one woman for life) but tried also to address the needs of those who for whatever reasons were involved in situations that needed to be addressed with grace and in the Spirit of Jesus. Sexual matters were considered to be very serious, as they still are, but somehow it was assumed that understanding of and convictions about human sexual experience and expression were implicitly transmitted to the young. Such matters were taboo as far as open discussion was concerned. During my years as pastor in Winnipeg the Mennonite pastor's group had several of us share how we conducted marriage preparation sessions with engaged couples. In my presentation I mentioned that I dedicated one session to the exploration of affection and sexuality. We would talk openly about sex in our culture, sex in history, sex in the Bible and sex in our experience. To some of the older pastors in the group this was an impossibility. One of them put it this way, “That is something that I cannot talk about to anyone." Over the years my attitude has developed along these lines: if the surrounding culture is open about sex and promotes sexual values and practices that are not in keeping with our faith, then the church must speak openly to the issue, presenting as clearly as possible a Christian understanding of sexuality. In the seventies and into the eighties this seemed to work, but in the later 80's there was another shift. Some young people from our Christian homes and attending a private high school had accepted society's morals (sex is just sex) and were unwilling to take seriously a Christian approach. I was invited to speak to the grade 10's at Westgate Mennonite Collegiate on a biblical view of sexuality. A medical doctor spoke on things anatomical and I spoke on things ethical. In the discussion that followed, one of the students said, “We don't believe what you're telling us." She spoke for some in the class. The next Sunday another girl from that class came to me in the church basement and said that she and others did agree with what I had presented. I am not aware whether our churches or our private schools are currently addressing the issues surrounding human sexuality adequately or not. What the youth are hearing in the lyrics of their muc and seeing in videos and movies does not seem to be in keeping with a Christian view of sexuality. What is the challenge for the future? I wonder whether we will need to do some serious re-thinking about ethics and morality; the approach may well have to be oriented more to Jesus' teaching and spirit than to our tradition. We will need to openly challenge our society's sexual values. We will need to redefine what it means for us today, to be “in the world" but not “of the world." We will need to explore afresh what it means "be not conformed to the world, but be transformed." It seems to me that we will also need to name and engage the cultural values that seek to overpower our thinking. An example: I was talking with some friends from long ago about the sharp rise in simply living together before marriage. In earlier times that was sin, plain and simple But a few years ago, one of the group responded with these words of resignation, "Well, that's simply the way it is these days." Will we muster the moral fiber to engage in the exploration of cultural assumptions portrayed implicitly in soaps, Much Music and movies (re sexuality, faithfulness, greed, hedonism and individualism)? In the first century, Paul dared to name the assumptions and practices of the surrounding culture, in Corinth, e.g. and declare what the Christian option was and then called believers to commit themselves to Jesus' way. (In a culture where going to prostitutes was common, and even practiced by believers, Paul declared it out of keeping with Christian faith; divorce was rampant, and he declared believers ought not to divorce, “but if they do. .,,.) How do we engage these major ethical and moral issues in our time? Engagement with scripture One of the major ways in which I have changed is in my understanding of and approach to the Bible. We were brought up with a high view of scripture and I appreciated that. I still have a high view of scripture but for quite different reasons. The view of scripture that I grew up with was that we had to defend the Bible from those who would discredit it. We would subscribe to certain fundamentals about the Bible and make sure that the Bible would be taken seriously, and that meant literally. We heard words like “inerrancy" and "plenary inspiration". When the RSV came out we were warned that it was dangerous. It had tampered with the authorized KJV. And when the United Church of Canada came out with a new curriculum early in the 60's there was a major uproar, both on Fraser Valley radio programs as well as in church periodicals like Der Bote and the Rundschau. Our approach to the Bible was also the theme of some ministers and deacons conferences in the early 60's. After having taught Bible school for seven years I continued with seminary studies (1966), but scholarly study of the Bible was suspect for many (as it is among the Aussiedler in Germany today) and so the farewell words of one of the lay ministers to me was a warning, "Pass auf, dass du nicht mit einer verkuerzten Bibel nachhause kommst." One of ways in which the approach to the Bible came to expression was the emphasis on dispensational/premillenial views of the end times. My first English Bible was the Scofield Reference Bible and my radio church was the Radio Bible Class of M.R. DeHaan, also an ardent dispensationalist. I was taken in by dispensationalism until I attended CMBC. I rejected it because it violated one of the Anabaptists main principles, that the Bible was to be interpreted christocentrically, the Old was to be interpreted in the light of the New. In other words, the Bible was not a ‘flat book'. Some parts of the Bible were more important to Christians than other parts. I also rejected the dispensational view of the Bible because it relegated Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount to a future kingdom age. Matthew 5-7 was not intended for Christians living under grace. I came to appreciate an approach to Revelation that accepts as important the context at the end of the first century and explores the nature of apocalyptic literature. The book of Revelation was intended to be of practical pastoral help to believers in Asia Minor at the dose of the first century. In classes and presentations since then I have taken the dispensationalists to task for their distortion of scripture. Many in our congregations are still taken in by this dispensational approach (Tim LaHaye, Jenkins, Left Behind Series, Jack van Impe Ministries on TV). The Bible as the inspired word of God is more important to me than earlier. I continue to believe that the basic gospel message is dear and accessible to all, even children, but that when we explore the whole Bible in greater detail we do need outside help. Last year I preached several sermons on the text, “Do you understand what you are reading?" (Acts 8:26-31) I also expanded that question and asked, “How do you understand what you are reading?" When I was pastor at FMC a visitor dropped in to “check out" my theology. “Do you take the Bible literally or not?" My answer, “Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't. It depends on the passage." We looked at Genesis 1-2 together and he found out that his insistence on taking everything literally didn't work. Since then I have adopted the following statements about the Bible for myself: It is the creation of the church.
One of the things I have become convinced of is that we pastors/teachers need to share what we know and believe about the Bible as a whole with the congregations. Many of our people know many of the details, and then they crave to see "the whole picture." It will be up to our pastors and teachers to provide this for them. Conclusion We are a people who have assimilated quickly into the mainstream of our society. We are resident aliens here, strangers and pilgrims, but we may have forgotten our true heritage and our hope. Perhaps we need to pay attention to what another group, the exiles in Babylon, heard from two of their prophets. The adults remembered the days in Judah and mourned the past. They felt they couldn't sing the Lord's song in a strange land. Jeremiah's word to them (contrary to the words of false prophets) was, “Build houses, plant gardens, marry and have sons and daughters... seek the peace of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord …” (Jer 29:4-7) In other words, prepare to stay awhile. Settle down. The young people adapted to Babylonian culture and lifestyle while the
elders lamented their losses. The young were excited about their opportunities
and tended toward assimilation. Isaiah's word to them was, don't just drink
from the cultural well of Babylon, practice discernment; don't just learn
from that which surrounds you, learn also from that which preceded you.
Isaiah wrote them this, “Look to the rock from which you were hewn and
to the quarry from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father and
to Sarah who bore you. (Isa. 51:1)
|