Maple View insert: Canadian Mennonite responds



The Sept. 25 print issue of Canadian Mennonite contained an insert from Maple View Mennonite Church entitled “Honour God with Your Bodies.” Some readers have asked about the rationale for its inclusion, many expressing pain, anger and confusion about its contents, and the fear that it will do further harm to LGBTQ Mennonites who have suffered rejection, shaming and exclusion from the body of faith, and to the church as a whole.

We have been deeply impacted by the stories we have heard. We regret the harm this insert has caused.

We want you to know that the decision to accept this insert was not taken lightly, but in response to the recommendations of the Becoming a Faithful Church (BFC) process.

CM publishes paid “promotional supplements” as an option for companies, organizations and church bodies to present their goods, services or ideas to our readers in the form of an insert that looks and feels different from the magazine. A supplement offers a sponsor control over format, paper stock, and content without the same editorial oversight given to news and viewpoints pages. While these inserts obviously generate revenue, the content must fit our editorial policy. CM has rejected requests when the insert does not, for example, represent a body related closely to the Mennonite church and its mission.

When Maple View Mennonite Church, a member of Mennonite Church Eastern Canada, approached CM about having a place to present its conclusions on its three-year participation in the BFC process, this was the vehicle it chose—certainly an unconventional one for a single congregation. This included having it stapled in the centre spread, so it wouldn’t slip out during mailing and could then be easily detached. Our staff was in dialogue with the church over a period of months. Because of the sensitive nature of the topic, we also discussed it with our board and church leaders. Because Maple View is a member of our church body, and the magazine’s stated mission includes helping diverse voices speak to the larger church, the difficult decision was made to allow the church’s statement to appear in a promotional supplement.

We believe making space for this is consistent with the recommendations of the BFC process, as the recently released General Board Confession states: “The General Board decided at the outset, that the process of the BFC should reflect the congregationally based polity of the denomination. This meant that discernment of faithfulness would emerge from the congregations and not only from the academy, advocacy groups, institutional structures or a representative committee. The BFC Task Force was mandated by the General Board, not to do the discerning, but to design a process that would allow all voices in our church to speak, to be heard, and to hear what others were saying.”

CM’s mission is “to educate, inform, inspire and foster dialogue on issues facing Mennonites in Canada . . . .” We recognize that this is a difficult and painful conversation, particularly for those who have experienced it in a deeply personal way, and we need to keep learning how to facilitate it. How do we “allow all” of us to speak, to be heard and to hear?

To read some readers’ letters responding to the insert, go to: www.canadianmennonite.org/readers-write-october-23-2017-issue and www.canadianmennonite.org/stories/readers-write-nov-6-2017-issue



33 Responses to “Maple View insert: Canadian Mennonite responds”

  1. Ben Borne Avatar
    Ben Borne

    Poor response!
    You should’ve just left it at “we regret” instead of justifying this terrible mistake. At this time I will be formerly terminating my subscription with Canadian Mennonite. Best of luck.

  2. Marilyn Zehr Avatar
    Marilyn Zehr

    How do we “allow all” of us to be heard
    A paid supplement to CM is not in line with the BFC process. Paid supplements privilege those who can afford to pay for such things and therefore cannot be a forum for equal access or dialogue. Articles and letters in your magazine facilitate dialogue. Commonword is our space for sharing discernment and theological documents and a place where all congregations can contribute equally. This decision by CM was so far away from the spirit of BFC and not at all in the spirit of ongoing dialogue that I call for CM to both recognize this and make a full and unqualified apology for its error in judgment on this.

  3. Jessica Reesor Rempel Avatar
    Jessica Reesor Rempel

    Deeply Grieved
    Dear friends,

    I was deeply grieved by Canadian Mennonite’s decision to include the insert and I continue to be deeply grieved by this response. The idea that we need to “allow all” to speak does not take into account the power differential in this situation. I know Canadian Mennonite strives to be a middle ground for the spectrum of viewpoints that exist within Mennonite Church Canada, but as those who study conflict resolution know, mediation is not appropriate in cases of power imbalance or abuse. Sometimes it is necessary to take a stand for justice. To not publish the insert surely would have upset the folks at Mapleview but it would not have directly attacked and hurt the very essence of particular individuals as this insert has done. Whether in the body of the magazine or as a paid insert, the impact was the same: anyone reading the magazine was forced to encounter these oppressive words. I believe that a very honest apology and steps towards reparation will be needed before Canadian Mennonite can feel like a safe space for those in the LGBTQ+ community and those who love and celebrate them. If you feel that taking a stand is not possible at this time, then I would request that you please stop publishing any content on this issue.

    Sincerely,

    Jessica Reesor Rempel

    1. Jared Redekop Avatar
      Jared Redekop

      My feeling exactly
      Thank you for your response Jessica. These are the thoughts and feelings I was having and you were able to articulate very eloquently.

      There is no way this should have been printed.

      Jared Redekop

    2. Gina Driedger Avatar
      Gina Driedger

      Yes yes yes yes!
      Beautifully said, Jessica. That is exactly what I’d say, just more eloquently spoken.

      I’m sorry to say that so much harm has come to the Mennonite community (yes, YOUR community. All of you. You ALL know someone who identifies as, or loves someone who is LGBTQ, whether you yourself know it or not. This IS your congregation) recently and I am heartbroken over the events that have transpired. This insert, and the CM’s “apology” have brought shame to us Mennonites. I have so many big feelings right now, and am having a hard time expressing them to the extent to which I feel them while still being appropriate for this forum. I am horrified, deeply ashamed, full of rage, heartbroken, mournful, defeated…. and I am “just” an ally; I’m not even personally hurt by this.

      We must LISTEN. Listen to those who identify as LGBTQ. Listen to our neighbours, our sisters and brothers in Christ. Listen to their pain, and for the love of God, let us have some COMPASSION. If you really look at the scriptures, Jesus would have wanted at LEAST that.

    3. Mark Morton Avatar
      Mark Morton

      I concur
      Jessica, well articulated. You’ve put your finger on a crucial aspect: the differential or power imbalance between LGBTQ+ individuals who have been persecuted and demeaned for centuries, and the powerful church communities that have historically abetted that persecution. Human dignity is not up for debate: we have no responsibility to listen to or provide a megaphone to those who advocate beliefs that undermine the worth of others.

  4. Brent Horst Avatar
    Brent Horst

    Timing is everything and this timing was way off
    Perhaps at the very start of the BFC process you could justify sharing this type of view, as you did in many letters to the editor. However we ended the BFC process with a thoughtful, difficult discussion at MC Canada Assembly in Saskatoon last summer. There we “agreed to disagree” to some degree and we voted as a national body to allow for congregations to hear what the Holy Spirit was saying to them as they felt led in a very different view than those expressed in the Mapleview insert. Many were hurt in the process, MC Canada Executive Board apologized to the LGBTQ+ community but we were moving forward carefully to a new understanding.
    By publishing the insert you allowed one congregation to give a slap in the face to the whole BFC process, the discernment of many congregations and a decision at a National Assembly. Mapleview shouldn’t have sent this to you because of all the hurt it causes the LGBTQ+ community, their families and their friends, but you shouldn’t have published it because of the result of the BFC process that you are well aware of. The timing of its publication is not justifiable and certainly not by pointing to the BFC process! Please take another look and admit it was a regrettable mistake.

  5. Carig Friesen Avatar
    Carig Friesen

    Listen
    It has bothered me from the beginning of the BFC process that LGBTQ Mennonites have been left out of the conversation. This is similar to the Maple View insert. As a Gay Mennonite I feel that the Canadian Mennonite is not listening to LGBT Mennonites. I am tired of feeling anxiety when I look through the Mennonite knowing I will stumble upon an opinion or insert that shames, excludes, and others me. This is not a debate for us, this is our lives. You are publishing and talking about us without understanding or listening to us. So please listen!

  6. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
    Steve Hoeppner

    Grieved over biblical orthodoxy?
    I believe it’s becoming powerfully evident how far the editorial integrity of this magazine has indeed fallen when it is said to be a “difficult decision” for the editorial staff to allow a supplement that is perfectly in line with orthodox Christian belief on sexuality. Not only is Maple View’s theology reflecting Christian teaching throughout most of the world today and the past 2000 years, but it’s also still the stated belief of MC Canada’s Confession of Faith. It is only very recently (2016) that this orthodoxy has been challenged by a relatively tiny minority who arrogantly believe they know better than God(!) and the historic cloud of Christian witnesses about what constitutes marriage and healthy human sexuality.

    The only grieving that should occur over this issue is that the majority of Mennonite leaders are not willing to take a gracious, yet firm stand for biblical truth, like Maple View Church.

    1. Matthew Froese Avatar
      Matthew Froese

      Are genetics a new orthodoxy?
      There was quite a bit more in the statement than a particular stance on marriage, and much of it is deeply questionable.

      No one 2000 years ago was proclaiming “our bodily genetic code, has been ravaged by sin and the fall.” Maple View has offered a statement that makes claims that are not present in the Bible, not present in the Confession of Faith, and would have been equally foreign to both my Mennonite great-grandparents and the Biblical authors.

      1. Howard Wideman Avatar
        Howard Wideman

        Maple View ad
        Thanks, Mathew, for awareness of the cultural world view current at the time the Bible was written. We can’t worship the written word. The inner word points us to Jesus.

  7. Kathy Shantz Avatar
    Kathy Shantz

    Sadly, this is deja vu all
    Sadly, this is deja vu all over again. I say this as a 62 year old who had direct experience in advocating for LGBTQ inclusion working for MCC Women’s Concerns back in the 90’s. Its astounding that so little has changed. Most of the LGBTQ Mennonites of my generation exited the church after it became abundantly clear that it was not safe to be out in Mennonite circles. I was mildly hopeful that a younger generation of LGBTQ people and their allies might make some progress but this does not seem to be the case. My heart bleeds for those who now feel deeply betrayed by CM’s actions.

    A gay friend of mine who left the Mennonite church a generation ago once said he didn’t fear the conservatives nearly as much as the liberals. He said he knew exactly what to expect from conservatives but it was liberals who sold him out. This dynamic is still at play in the CM defense of the Maple View insert. As I found out 35 years ago working for MCC Canada, you cannot advance a career in a Mennonite institution if you advocate for gay inclusion. Don’t know how people can sleep at night knowing the violence they commit on behalf of these institutions.

    But if its any consolation to those who have been betrayed, my friend recently became Executive Director of a Provincial Heritage Foundation. One of his tasks is the overseeing of closures and re-purposing of churches throughout the province. Perhaps there is a God somewhere after all.

  8. walter bergen Avatar
    walter bergen

    Canadian Mennonite responds
    I hereby request that the Canadian Mennonite withdraw its apology. Are you not apologizing for upholding journalistic integrity? It is your role to be a crossroads and sounding board for the diverse conviction across our communion. The Mapleview Statement is a courageous, articulate restatement of what the church has understood about human and sexual relations since the Apostles. That the congregation had to pay for the insert is simply a sign of our times. This statement resonates with many who are welcoming but not affirming, loving but not accepting.

    If you apologize for offense to the LGBTQ activists who are deeply grieved, than you must also apologize to the Confessing Churches who are also deeply grieved. You made a tough call, it was the right call and you should own your vocation as Christian journalists. Do not apologize for grasping the nettle on the right and the nettle on the left: its called integrity.

  9. Randell Neudorf Avatar
    Randell Neudorf

    This is about people, not issues
    There are real people who have been hurt. People who need a real apology. Canadian Mennonite’s editorial policy for letters says, “Please address issues rather than individuals; personal attacks will not appear in print or online.” You broke your own rule. The Maple View insert may have been intended to address an issue but CM mails it’s material to “people.” You need to listen to LGBTQ+ Mennonites who are saying that your decision to distribute Maple View’s insert was experienced as an attack. You need to own that and ask for forgiveness. Your intentions are less important than the perceptions of your fellow Jesus followers that you have hurt. You need to ask the LGBTQ+ Jesus followers who read your magazine what they would see as a healthy “third way” forward. You need to accept responsibility for your actions. Please do better, please listen more and print less.

  10. Sam Steiner Avatar
    Sam Steiner

    The Canadian Mennonite and Maple View
    I strongly disagree with Maple View’s position, but I do defend the Canadian Mennonite in its publishing of the Maple View insert.

    I believe Maple View made a poor decision in publishing the insert because its uncompromising language did not welcome any engagement with persons who held a differing view. Consequently it generated much anger in many readers, and and may simply create self-righteous theological smugness in those who agreed with Maple View’s text.

    However, until Mennonite Church Canada changes article 19 in the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, Maple View has stated a position formally in line with that held by the denomination. Maple View has been a member in good standing of Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church Eastern Canada. I think this fact compelled Canadian Mennonite to accept the article as presented, while making it clear this was not editorial content of the magazine.

    I think the outrage expressed on social media and here should be shifted from castigating the Canadian Mennonite and should be transformed to positive efforts to update the current Confession of Faith to understandings presently held by the denomination. Thankfully there has been enormous change in MC Canada on this issue in the last decade, but silencing the recently new minority is not the best response we can give.

    1. Brent Horst Avatar
      Brent Horst

      outrage is a positive effort
      I believe the outrage is warranted and part of a positive effort to move forward. The views in this insert and the wide publication of it has set us back years in a positive discernment process.

  11. Julie Armes Avatar
    Julie Armes

    Saddened and Angry
    First, I believe the editorial and publishing staff of Canadian Mennonite is well-intentioned though badly mis-guided in publishing and then defending the Maple View supplement, and what follows is not intended as a personal attack on any person or CM as a whole, but rather a strong critique of the actions taken by CM staff over the Maple View fiasco. I echo Jessica’s comments. Any offence Maple View may have taken from having their proposed insert rejected is microscopic in comparison to the profound feelings of violation, betrayal, fear, confusion, despair, and anger this supplement has roused within the LGBTQ community. There is no comparison at all, the power imbalance is so vast. Allowing the supplement initially was a major error in judgement on Canadian Mennonite’s part. Publishing a non-apology defending the error only aggravates it all the more. Your mission to “to educate, inform, inspire and foster dialogue on issues facing Mennonites in Canada” has failed utterly, both with the initial insert, and with the Oct 23 response. There is no educating or informing, just forcing one congregation’s view on the entire polity. It has polarized the conversation, making people less likely to truly dialogue and listen to one another. Nothing short of a complete apology, excuses exempted, to the LGBTQ community and to our entire church readership for allowing CM to become a political platform for one church to spout its discriminatory viewpoint will begin to address the profound hurt this has caused within our body. It will take years for Canadian Mennonite to build up any trust with the LGBTQ community.

  12. Richard Enns Avatar
    Richard Enns

    Biblical orthodoxy
    Would you have us stone biblical transgressors? Cherry picking Bible verse to justify discrimination seems somewhat sacrilegious.

    1. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
      Steve Hoeppner

      Cherry Picking
      Richard, I suspect you and I would agree that stoning is not a prescribed new testament method of dealing with sexual sin. We see this clearly modeled by Jesus in the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery (Jn 8) as well as in Paul’s dealings with the Corinthians. Ironically, those stories come out of the same new testament that also warns us on several occasions that the sexually immoral (hetero or homosexual) will not inherit the kingdom of God. To gladly accept one passage of scripture while rejecting the other (as proponents of homosexuality often do) is the epitome of cherry picking, as you allege I am doing. And so, to be faithful (and not sacrilegious as you likewise accuse me) we are compelled to take the scriptures as they come to us, and not how we wish them to be.

      My sincere suggestion for you would be to develop a solid biblical hermeneutic for identifying which aspects of the old testament law are still applicable to us today, and which are not. One simple way of doing this is to look at which old testament commands reappear in the new testament, and which do not. In this way we can clearly see that commands to sacrifice animals, for example, are abolished through the cross while commands against homosexuality are not.

      I know this is an emotional issue for many, but we simply cannot rewrite scripture to suit our own preferences. We must conform to the unchanging word of God, not vice-versa.

      1. Richard Enns Avatar
        Richard Enns

        cherry picking
        Steve, your suggestion to identify “which aspects of the old testament law are still applicable to us today” would seem to be an exercise in cherry picking and would seem to be ignoring the “unchanging word of God”. If you want to “take the scriptures as they come to us, and not how we wish them to be”, does it not require consistency?
        As a proponent of human rights, I find it distasteful to use scripture to discriminate. I believe that God, in Her infinite wisdom, intended us to live in harmony and to love each other in a respectful way and I don’t think the paid advertisement/insert made enough room for that.

      2. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
        Steve Hoeppner

        Illogical
        Sadly Richard, your argument is not only erroneous but bordering on plain silly. No serious biblical scholar would refute that the new covenant in Jesus abrogates the Law. The question is merely which aspects of the Law remain and which do not. Have you ever read Romans, Hebrews or Galatians, for example? To then suggest God the Father is a woman after pointing out that He is unchanging in His nature is pure self-contradiction.

        It’s probably best for you to educate yourself more before making comments on things you clearly don’t understand very well. God will hold each one of us accountable for our words, and misleading others with them is a serious issue in his eyes. (Luke 17.2)

      3. Richard Enns Avatar
        Richard Enns

        Cherry picking
        Hi Steve, thx for the reply. God, in Her omnipresence and omnipotence, would like us to live in harmony and respectful love. I’m glad that you enjoy the paid insert and that it confirms your beliefs. Please remember, God shines Her light on all of us equally. Isn’t it better to be compassionate and find similarities in bringing people together rather than trying to find differences to drive them apart? There’s an excellent article you may want to peruse (“God is a lesbian…”) to gain further knowledge and develop your perspective. Good luck with you’re Biblical scholarship and I hope it helps you to expand your horizons. It’s been wonderful to have had this opportunity to share ideas with you.

      4. Mark Morton Avatar
        Mark Morton

        Steve, biblical references to
        Steve, biblical references to God as a “father” are metaphorical. They don’t actually mean that God has male genitalia. Accordingly, it’s quite appropriate to conceive of God as male or female or neither or both.

      5. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
        Steve Hoeppner

        God as female?
        Mark, unfortunately you’re misguided in your logic. First off, we know that God the Father is Spirit (Jn 4.24) and therefore is not male in the same way you and I are. That, however, by no means gives us license to then conclude God is female. One statement does not logically follow from the other as you claim.

        Please study the Bible to see where God is described as male in the Bible. If you do you will find that it is with metaphor (“God the Father”). Then also note how whenever God’s female attributes are described in the Bible they are done with the use of simile. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling” (Lk 13.34).

        There is a massive difference between the two, and failing to discern this difference leads to critical theological error, just as you have demonstrated. Furthermore, Jesus was quite content to continually refer to God as Father. Are you saying you have superior knowledge (Gnosis?) about God’s nature than Jesus, who is the only one to have seen God (Jn 1.18)? Or are you saying, as many Mennonites currently suggest, that the scriptures are merely a product of patriarchal culture and therefore cannot be trusted? If that is the case we’d better toss out the parts of the Bible we like as well, such as the Sermon on the Mount, in order to be consistent.

      6. Matthew Froese Avatar
        Matthew Froese

        God and gender
        It’s worth taking a closer look at the root languages here, though, since they are all gendered languages and their handling of gender in grammar is different from English and from each other. So when you say that God the Father is Spirit, in the Greek of John the word for spirit is neuter, while paired at times with masculine grammar and sometimes with feminine imagery. In contrast, the Hebrew word for the Spirit of God is feminine, as it is in Aramaic, so it’s likely that the gender implied by the language used to describe the Spirit of God switched from feminine to masculine when the words that Jesus spoke about the Spirit were translated into Greek.

      7. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
        Steve Hoeppner

        Gender
        Yes, the word for Spirit in Greek is neuter but Jesus himself clarifies that the actual person of the Spirit of God is male.

        “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (Jn 16.7)

        As I said in the previous post, in order to discount the continual references Jesus himself makes to the Godhead as masculine, not feminine, you will either need to claim to be smarter than Jesus or simply acknowledge that you don’t believe in the authority of the Bible. Either scenario is quite frightening and completely at odds with what it means to be Anabaptism Christian.

        The better approach to understanding biblical truth is to cease approaching the Bible with presuppositions, then proof-texting to support that argument. Instead, simply believe God’s word is true and humble yourself in living in obedience and submission to it. The Bible is really not that complicated, even a 5 year old can grasp the main ideas behind it.

        The real issue at play here is that many so-called Christians today are living lives of moral compromise and sin and do not want to submit to God’s commandments. Instead they produce countless red-herring arguments, such as the one you are indulging in here, to divert attention away from the very straightforward demands of the scriptures. Please stop this nonsense, humble yourself and repent before God. Otherwise The Holy Spirit will continue to veil your eyes from seeing truth.

      8. Richard Enns Avatar
        Richard Enns

        Gender bound
        Steve, at some point you may want to shake loose the shackles of patriarchy and experience God in all Her glory. Being bound by dusty tomes is limiting at best. Scholarship without direct experience is pointless. Open your heart and mind and experience the wonder of God and your limited view will become infinite. The doors of perception can only be cleansed through direct experience. Try it, you might even like it.

      9. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
        Steve Hoeppner

        Gender
        Richard, it is a tell-tale sign that one’s argument is empty when a person reverts to personal accusation, insults and sarcasm.

        As I’ve said before, please humble yourself before God and stop this nonsense. What I am articulating theologically is orthodox Christian belief that Menno Simons himself endorsed.

        Jesus’ warning (Matt 18) to those who teach others to stumble into sin is very sobering, and when individuals, like yourself, go online encouraging people to believe things that are not true about God they are actually helping them to stumble. I ask you with all sincerity to stop what you are doing and repent.

      10. Craig Anderson Avatar
        Craig Anderson

        Praying for you
        I pray for you, Steve, that you will encounter the living God and begin to live by faith, following Jesus. It will likely not be easy to give up the certainty of allegiance to a book to live by faith in God, but both the OT and NT are replete with stories of God’s deliverance from idolatry. I am sorry if this hurts and for the tone which might well come off as self-righteous and accusatory, but I sense your openness to valuing truth above all else, and that that will help you filter out any hubris I, in my fallen humanness, may have introduced into this dialogue. I really am sincere and I do pray for you.

      11. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
        Steve Hoeppner

        Prayers against believing in the Bible?
        Hi Craig,

        I will take your comments as sincere, and as a result your prayers as well. Unfortunately, you are the one who is deceived. Greatly, in fact. If you stop to consider what you are saying you might realize how erroneous you are. You say, “It will likely not be easy to give up the certainty of allegiance to a book to live by faith in God, but both the OT and NT are replete with stories of God’s deliverance from idolatry.”

        Are you actually saying that having a certainty and allegiance to the Bible as the word of God is idolatrous, and that it’s antithetical to having faith in God? If so, you are also calling Jesus idolatrous because he affirmed the absolute authority of the scriptures himself.

        “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Jesus, Matthew 5.17-18)

        In reality, the reason the Bible is “replete with stories of God’s deliverance from idolatry” is precisely because God’s people failed to live according to the commands of God in the Bible. (You’ve completed cancelled out your own argument.)

        I urge you to further consult our denomination’s Confession of Faith (article 4) and the entire historical witness of the believing church for the past 2000 years, which declare that the Bible is authoritative for living the Christian life.

        You’re not only uttering heresy, Craig, by implying the Bible is an idol, but you’re displaying your immense ignorance on this issue as well.

  13. Joanne Thiessen Martens Avatar
    Joanne Thiessen Martens

    Paid supplements are not conducive to dialogue
    I was dismayed to see the paid supplement from Maple View Mennonite Church published in the Canadian Mennonite. Regardless of the viewpoint expressed, sponsored content is not an appropriate venue for dialogue on any topic, especially one that has already proven to be divisive and hurtful. Giving a megaphone to one voice (the one who offers to pay for it) after inviting dissenting voices into a difficult conversation is no way to foster dialogue, nor does it allow all voices to be heard.

    I urge the Canadian Mennonite to review its policies around paid supplements so that our conversations are not dominated by those who can pay to have their voice amplified above all others.

    Joanne Thiessen Martens

  14. walter bergen Avatar
    walter bergen

    Gender bound
    Let us not exchange one ideology for another. Patriarchy and feminism are both ideologies that detract from the wonder and mystery of God. To dismiss the one to embrace the other is akin to being loosed from a demon to only have seven more come to fill the void.
    To embrace tradition, our Anabaptist tradition of biblical interpretation and discipleship is to also uphold a certain humility, knowing that what seems obvious and fruitful today is tomorrow’s foible.
    What seems obvious and good today, may in fact turn out to be evil and foolish–in hindsight. We should all be careful which fruit from which tree we seek to eat. Genesis 3. The anticipated consequence may surprise us.

  15. Howard Wideman Avatar
    Howard Wideman

    God as she
    Thanks, Richard. I have never yet seen a rooster gather his chicks under his wings.

Leave a Reply