How do I Think I Think? Practical Reconciliation 7

 

2014 Grad Class

How do I Think I Think?

Practical Reconciliation 7 

So far, I’ve talked about the basis of bias and its offspring--prejudice, discrimination and racism--- against the background of my Mennonite culture and faith. This would seem appropriate except for one factor: the binary worldview has very much been a part of denominational Christianity historically. Early Anabaptists stepped out of the established, national religious culture into what was seen by them to be a life lived faithfully under the direction of Jesus and the gospels, a stand that challenged the authority of the established church. Stepping over that line could mean exile, even death and all that was required by way of evidence would be news of one's participation in a re-baptism. 

You were either an Anabaptist or you were an obedient adherent of the established church; in practice, there was nothing between. It was a decidedly dualistic, binary worldview. But looking back, we can see how those labeled Anabaptist were not universally on the same page in their faith and beliefs, and among Catholics and Lutherans, there were those who were nominal adherents only, were moving away from the church (peasant revolts, for instance) so that the space between extreme Catholic and extreme Anabaptist was considerable. Many “disputations” took place, but they were weighted toward the status quo and Anabaptist’s stood no chance of gaining their faith freedom through persuasion. 

Actually, much of the language of Christianity itself portrays the world as binary, dualistic. Heaven/Hell, saved/lost, believer/non-believer. The idea that between a hell reserved for the deliberate servants of Satan and the Heaven to which the saints are destined, there is no provision for places between, where neither the eternal flames nor eternal bliss are appropriate, places where good-but-not-churched people, naughty children, kind and generous Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists might spend eternity. Purgatory was once proposed, but without any basis in scripture, it became a fundraising corruption against which Martin Luther railed. The mindset of, “Sorry, but if you’re not in, you’re out!” prevailed. 

There was a time when people were unable to transfer membership from a GC to an MB Mennonite Church or intermarry unless they’d had the appropriate form of baptism. Thompson United Mennonite Church was worship home to GC, MB, EMMC, even Anglicans or Lutherans or whoever shared the faith basics and wished to participate. We asked both Manitoba GC conference and MB conference if it would be possible to obtain joint membership for our church so people of either background could stay connected to what was familiar to them. The MB Conference declined, citing the possibility of intermarriage as the reason. A small example, but one which again illustrates dualistic, binary thinking. 

Eigenheim Mennonite, to its credit, has come to recognize the folly of binary thinking when applied to faith and has without any deliberate decision, taken the path pioneered by Thompson United Mennonite and other remote churches. It’s future as a viable institution likely depends on its openness to members fitting neither the “Mennonite Pole” nor the “Not-Mennonite Pole.” It is, after all, not Menno Simons, Martin Luther, or John Calvin we follow, but Jesus Christ. There are unique faith aspects entrusted to the Anabaptist movement, non-resistance being but one, but this is not a rule, it’s a teaching and teaching, learning, worship, discernment and celebration lie close to the heart of Christian faith. At the same time, all who choose to participate—including those who have made that choice generations ago—are not the “ins” as opposed to the “outs;” all are together “becoming.” 

Why is this part of the discussion? In earlier posts, we explored the theme of bias and how it plays into more serious racism, discrimination and prejudice. Christians are not immune from divisive mindsets. In fact, for some Christians the very faith is touted as justification for biases. The Bible, fortunately or unfortunately, is flexible enough, diverse enough to allow a broad range of interpretation of details. New Testament imperatives, however, are as clear as anything can be . . . except when we are determined to justify or nurture biases. 

Look carefully two paragraphs back and you might well say, “Yes, George, but you’re obviously biased toward the “General Conference” church and away from the Mennonite Brethren Church. And you’d be absolutely right. I am so biased. The gospel requires of us, however, to act out of love, not out of biases that may have developed over generations and may seem anchored, by now, in concrete. 

 In about 2003, Erwin Tiessen and I met with leadership of Bethany College, our goal being to explore ways in which RJC and Bethany could develop a cooperative relationship to benefit both. The effort was stillborn, but our discussions at the teaching/administration level were enlightening in that the GC/MB biases were revealed to be shallow; the hopes for the Kingdom too deep to allow for bias-driven separation.

 Maybe, in the end, being a peacemaker is mastering the art of recognizing, admitting and overcoming biases, and learning to act from loftier motivations.

And while we’re in the confessional booth here, I have to admit that I’m biased toward four-part harmony and away from unison, chorus-style singing; I’m biased toward reverence in worship and away from Pentecostal-style worship; I’m biased toward social democracy and away from Western capitalism; I’m mightily biased away from vegetables that go limp and slimy when cooked and toward meat and potatoes, and, and, . . . but I’ll stop there; I’m beginning to dislike myself.