The Menno Melange

Every Christmas I have a few books in mind that I would like to receive as gifts. I am so fond of books as a gift idea, that I often talk to other people about what they are reading, moreso around Christmas, so I can get a good idea of what to ask for. What follows is a list of books that I’ve read recently, or have on my shelf and use often as a resource. For your convenience, I’ve linked them to amazon.ca where you can order them for yourself (and I get a small commission, but that’s not why I’m doing this).

	This is the book that I’m currently reading. It takes the historical Anabaptist movement which I love studying and writing about, and discusses it in a more contemporary language of spirituality. It includes original writings by early Anabaptists and walks us through the implications of those statements. It really closes the gap of time. A great read so far.
	Since most early Anabaptists would have been illiterate, they would have memorized large portions of it, clumped together in sections by topic and sorted by relevance, like in this book. This is a concordance used by early Anabaptists, but it’s quite interesting how they organized the scriptures and what concepts were most important to them.

Both of the above books were promoted during the pastor’s gathering at the Mennonite Church Conference gathering in Edmonton, AB, which we attended this summer. Arnold Snyder was the keynote speaker there and the author of these books. Fellow blogger Tim Chesterton took close notes of the talk.

	This book was a textbook for my class entitled “Contemporary Mennonite Thought” and it serves as an excellent resource for knowing what various Mennonite/Anabaptist scholars have written in the past and are thinking now. It includes analysis of long-dead early Anabaptist thinkers and groups, more recent popular writers (ie. John Howard Yoder), and more contemporary scholars, including some men I’ve studied under.
	The TNIV is the cool new Biblical translation, which means they’re allowed to try new things. “The Story” is a re-arranged Bible. It’s not re-arranged into intentional reading blocks, but sequentially, so you’re reading an ordered account, from front page to back. No repeats in I & II Chronicles or in the gospels. A great idea if you ask me.
	I read this book a few years ago, but I keep going back to it because it contains so much wisdom. The kingdom of God/heaven, the central aspect of Jesus’ ministry is discussed at length, while it is compared and contrasted with kingdoms of this world. This isn’t a source of cozy sermon illustrations, but a challenging set of conclusions about Christ’s message.
	We recently finished reading this book together. As I was warned, much of the book is insensitively provocative, wildly speculative and written more for popular appeal than ecumenical credibility. However, it also has incredible historical insights, and thorough Biblical analysis, showing a love for the Bible and regular reading of it.

If you’ve read a great book along these lines recently, let me know. Also, if you’ve read one of these books lately and disagree with my assessment, let me know that too.

In my youth Sunday School class, I gave a quiz today. I’m starting a self-developed curriculum on the Bible, its stories and our ways of reading them. So I thought it would be helpful for me to see where they are at in terms of knowing the familiar Bible stories. The quiz had 5 two-part questions, where a correct answer to either part was worth a point. Essentially there were 10 possible points and it was being marked out of 5. The highest score was 3. See how you do.

Questions

1 a) Who/what convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden?
b) What type of fruit was it?

2 a) Joseph (the one with the technicoloured coat) had a dream where he, his brothers and his father were sheaves of wheat. What happened in that dream?
b) He had another dream about his father and brothers. What happened in that dream?

3 a) What was the name of the king who tried to kill David?
b) That king gave David his daughter as a bride, but for a price. What was that price?

4 a) When Jesus stormed the temple, he freed the animals. What else did he do?
b) What was he carrying in his hand?

5 a) Paul had a dramatic conversion experience on the road. Explain it.
b) What was the name of that road?

I’m not equating faith with knowledge of the Bible, and I wasn’t really surprised or fundamentally dissappointed by the results. I just know that I learned more in Sunday School than these kids did. As a teenager, I likely would have gotten at least 6 points, but I’m quite sure that my Sunday School experience was a bit more intense, or maybe I was just weird and sort of paid attention.

See how you do. Here are the answers: (Take them as they are, I don’t want a big theological discourse over some minute points, as much as I’d likely be tempted to do in your shoes.)

1. a) a snake/serpent/asp (or half a point if you said satan/devil)
1. b) The Bible doesn’t definitively say.
2. a) Everyone else’s sheaves bowed down to his.
2. b) They were all stars/moons/etc. and the rest all bowed down to his star.
3. a) Saul
3. b) 100 Phillistine foreskins
4. a) Overturned the money changing tables
4. b) a whip
5. a) He was blinded by a light (from heaven), fell off his horse, heard Jesus’ voice, led by his friends into town. (If you had any of this, give yourself a point)
5. b) Damascus Road

Feel free to post your score in the comments. There is no judgement here, unless you used an internet search to either find your answers or to verify mine, in which case, consider yourself judged.

Recently Will and I went to Moody Blues with some friends, to enjoy that scrumptious cake and to select tea from the overwhelming variety of choices. After a game of pick-up-sticks we somehow landed on the subject of war (whether it can be justifiable or not), God’s involvement in war (if at all), the Holocaust, and (most disturbingly, as one suggested) whether or not God intended the Holocaust to happen. This topic of discussion alone made me uneasy, alongside the fact that I put too much sugar in my tea and the fact that the music (intense modern alternative jazz, with unresolved sporatic chords, as per usual) made me want to yank my hair out. My immediate thoughts were “Of course God did not intend the Holocaust to happen! What kind of God would that be?!” However, to support the inquirer (who seemed to be readying his shell to promptly retreat to it), I said, “Well, God can work through evil to bring out good, such as the work of Victor Frankl” (to name just one).

I wanted so much to believe that it could be that simple. But it isn’t.

It was pointed out to me that it is written in scripture that God appoints all leaders, and that everyone should submit to their leader:

Romans 13: 1-2;”Everyone must submit himself to the government authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Well, Hitler was an authority. What does this mean for those who did not support Hitler? What does this mean for Christians now who only remember Hitler for the evil he (and his nazis, and the world who turned a blind eye) committed?

Romans 13: 3-5; “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong….For he is God’s servant to do you good….an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience.”

This obviously was not written with the Holocaust in mind, but rather specifically to the Romans, with the Roman government in mind. This I know, except that as Christians, I understand we are to look to the whole Bible for guidance, including Pauls letters. Also, Paul makes generalizations that are to be applied in all cases, such as “…for there is no authority except that which God has established.”

Personally, I believe God does not appoint leaders, but rather allows leaders to rise and fall, with the ever-present desire that both the leader and the followers believe in Him and seek His will…but that isn’t always the case. Either that, or God does appoint leaders with a purpose in mind, but allowing free will to take its course.

But I still struggle with this…

Recently I’ve been attending a Bible study in the town where I pastor. It’s billed as a community Bible study, but it is quite clearly run and geared towards one particular congregation. I don’t particularly enjoy the Bible studies, they’re even more boring than normal, but I still go. Essentially what motivates me to go is a gesture of goodwill between churches, at least, I hope it’s that noble. Part of me is afraid that I attend simply to show that I am not intimidated by their knowledge of the Bible, that I am not backing down from them. Maybe I’m arrogant enough to believe that my mere presence will show them the best way to read the Scriptures, maybe.

I’m not an argumentative sort, and I hate confrontations, so I don’t say much, I just sit and listen. Also, your question won’t really be heard unless you attach a specific Bible verse, with exact reference, and nobody has tried to disagree with the speaker so far. For me, the real action happens after the study concludes. Since I am not a regular, I always get approached and asked, “so what do you think?”, which translates as, “have we converted you yet?” or worse, “I challenge you to point out any possible flaws in what you heard.” I know that I have asked that question before with similar intentions. Understanding their logic, I avoid the hot button questions, but they seem unavoidable.

One guy closer to my age was at my church with his family, for the Christmas Eve service (which featured Christmas Carols and a play I wrote and acted in). I asked him what his thoughts were. He didn’t like how I made a joke with the Magi. (I used girls instead of guys. They were asked why they were women instead of men, and responded “Of course we’re women. If we were men, do you think we would have stopped in Jerusalem and asked for directions?” At which point the audience burst into laughter) His point was that such an important story should not be taken lightly. I said that humour is an important tool is spreading the gospel, and he challenged me to back that up with Scripture, and then somehow we were arguing about a 6 24-hour day creation. I don’t want to bring this guy’s whole faith into question, I just want to give him a new way of thinking. His point is that the gospel doesn’t need us to preach it with worldly methods, because the Holy Spirit will be active in people’s hearts. My point is that we are called to make the good news relevant to people.

It seems like I’m trying to do two things at once, not be labeled a heretic, but still present new ideas. Perhaps it’s futile for me to try, seeing as how they are not particularly good listeners. Perhaps it’s arrogant of me to think I’m any closer to a full understanding of the Bible than they are. At times, I wonder if I should read my Bible more, so that I’ll be better equipped to debate them, but then I remember, that the Bible isn’t a weapon. Sure it’s a double-edged sword, blah, blah, blah, but it shouldn’t be used in this battle of oneupmanship. I’ve been invited over to one of the guys’ house for dinner, and I expect that invitation to include an attack on Anabaptism (this guy just borrowed a Mennonite history textbook from me), or a religious discussion of some kind. We’ll see how it turns out.
I know this post is a poorly structured rambling, but it’s late, and it’s not worth rearranging.

Over lunch today, I was flipping through our local community newspaper, and I saw an ad inviting people to take part in a community Bible study. I was interested, as I generally support this kind of idea. I looked closer to see who was organizing it, and to see if it was on a night that would work for me to drop in. It turns out that it was a Bible Study that I was already aware of, and it didn’t fit my schedule. I won’t say who was hosting it, but their description caught my eye. The ad led in with these questions:
“Is the Bible still relevant today? Does God still matter?”
I think these are good questions to be asking in church circles, but the questions were followed up with this:
“Join us to see what the Bible says about these questions.”
Sure the Bible has stuff to say about those questions, and maybe I’m being too pragmatic about this, but you can’t say that the Bible is relevant because it says so about itself. Of course I believe that it is, I’m a pastor afterall, but it’s bad logic to defend the Bible using the Bible. Nobody believes that I’m the world’s most prominent expert on comparitive sports analysis just because I say I am. George Bush isn’t running on the platform, “I’m the best man for the job, take my word for it.”
When discussing the relevance of the Bible, or faith, or God, etc., you are better served to look at what the Bible says about the rest of the world and life in general, not about it’s own relevance.

I’ve recently initiated a self-guided, chronological walk through the stories of the Bible’s significant men. My first stop was in Genesis 2 and 3, reading the story of Adam. Long ago, I wrote off the creation debate as irrelevant, so I wasn’t looking to strengthen my position on either side of the argument. I fully believe that God is fully capable to have created the earth in 6 24 hour days, and if he did, any scientific/intellectual problems created by that would simply be an example of another human/divine misunderstanding. If God chose to “create” the world through a billion plus year evolutionary process, in no way would that take away from the love God has for us, or the salvation he offers us. My purpose was rather to try and see the story from Adam’s eyes, to see how he felt. I wanted to see what God expected of these men, and to see how God communicated with them. Adam is really only special, because he was the first man, he got to name the animals, and because he had open communication with God. The fall reveals that he was a particularly weak man, not only because he sinned, but because he was so weak about it. Rather than focusing on the historical accuracy of Adam’s story, I focused on a matter of current relevance, male/female interaction. It seems to me that if Adam and Eve is only a story, if it’s only in the Bible because that’s the way it happened, then it’s easier to write off the outcome. Now if this story is in the Bible to convey a message, then that message is harder to dismiss. I’m not saying that woman submitting to men is proven that much stronger in Genesis, but you certainly can’t write off both the historical accuracy of Adam and Eve, and the modern relevance of the curses to the genders after the fall.