After the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference posted its statement in the MB Herald about the missing pages in On Holy Ground, people began to comment in reply. Find
those replies below. Credit to the Conference for publishing the replies, most of which are critical of the decision.
DORA DUECK
As editor of this volume, I have tried to be gracious in describing my
reaction to this action of the executive boards — my sense of deflation,
discouragement, and so on — in a letter I wrote to two Canadian leaders about
it, but to read this justification of the action and process this morning,
subsequent to all that, has me stunned. And angry. It badly mis-characterizes
both the book (making it narrower than described in the invitation to the
contributors) and the portion that was removed.
Anyone who reads the entire
essay will see that it has not “suddenly departed,” will see that it is of a
piece with the story of a long ministry, of struggle and change. To say it
“proceeds” to make OT analogies within “a mini-theology essay” is simply false. The writer is recounting the experience of being asked by “a sincere young man”
studying heresy what it was like to be “rebuked,” and then giving the context
for his question. It was about speaking at a study conference, something that
is very much a part of her history as a leader in the denomination. There is
narrative throughout, this is *her* story! And can the executives not read the
pain and complication here? And the bit about Esau, which runs throughout this
writer’s piece, it’s a parallel, can’t they see?
And the waste of time and money and goodwill in destroying new books —
accepted and cleared by the Historical Commission and already printed — and
reprinting! And to simply “regret” that the “urgent timeline” didn’t allow for
“personal conversations directly with the author, editor, and others involved”?
This is tepid almost beyond belief.
Perhaps it felt urgent then, but in the
interval between when the action was taken and the need to explain themselves
as leaders became apparent, there was plenty of time in which I, for example,
could have been consulted. I could have helped them read this passage properly,
could have explained why it belonged. Could have tried to make them see that
this collection of life-writing is, essentially, historical document. The decision
was wrong, the process was wrong. And there could have been conversation!
And saddest of all, for me, is the notoriety now given to a small
portion, which the majority of readers — I’m convinced — would have understood
as a part of one woman’s story, would have “let it be” whether they agreed or
not. In the Editor’s note at the front of the book I said, “To be public with
it [each woman’s story] carries some risk…and so my invitation to every reader
is to listen well–with gratitude and interest, and without judgment–to the
variety of voices here, and to each unique expression on the theme.”
These
stories deserve to be heard, each is unique, and somehow I can’t help feeling
the book has been devalued and that the others will not be heard. I hope I’m wrong,
that many will still buy the book and listen carefully — without judgment.
(And, for those interested, the missing pages are available online to be read
there.)
I am responding with passion about this, yes, for all the above reasons,
and perhaps, my “unusual step,” like theirs. I wish I could weep but this has
hollowed me out.
JON BRANDT
So disappointing. The MBs have continued to deny the moving of the
Spirit. I’m grateful I have found other Mennonites more willing to engage in a
communal hermeneutic and listen to God speaking through God’s people. ‘Your
daughters shall prophesy’ has been ignored for decades. This control of power
from the centre is symptomatic of the rot eating away at this denomination from
the inside.
PETER
This is such a travesty. Shame on the Mennonite Brethren denomination. I
am saddened that the churches of my youth have doubled down on misogynistic and
homophobic doctrines that only serve to divide the body of Christ, rather than
to unite it. I am not joking when I say that it is the continued sexism,
homophobia, transphobia, and general disdain for the poor that has driven me
out of the church.
Let me be clear: I am no longer a Christian precisely because of actions
like these. What did Jesus say? “Leave town and shake the dust off your feet?”
Consider it done, and with pleasure.
LEE
So a woman’s voice was silenced in a book commissioned to feature
women’s voices. Sadly, this seems to be indicative of the struggle women
continue to face in this Conference. This article leaves out the fact that 270
copies of the book printed with the objectionable 3 pages were destroyed at the
CCBMC office. This article’s claim that the censored 3 pages would reinforce
the “damaging stereotype that embracing women in leadership leads necessarily
to an affirming stance on gay marriage for Christians” portrays a need to
hyper-control messaging and infantilizes the book’s readers.
I do not think that the three
pages that were censored, which can be found at the link below, are “a
mini-theology essay advocating for a type of LGBTQ+ inclusion.” The author
clearly talks about her experience of wrestling with matters of LGBTQ+
inclusion as analogous to her experience of having an evolving understanding of
women in leadership as a result of study, discernment and practicing a
community hermeneutic.
The censored pages also explore what it means to
struggle with deep cultural questions in light of Scripture and to hold safe space
for real dialogue among Christians who have different understandings of the
Bible. The fact that MB leadership did not have a personal conversation
directly with the author, editor, and others involved is yet another example of
what I have seen as anxiety and a utilitarian ethic that sees the upholding of
current Confessional convictions as the supreme goal, resulting in a disregard
of relationship.
To me, these are not the actions of a Conference committed to God’s
dream of shalom – peace in all our relations. Being a Christian (individual,
church, or Conference) is about more than rigidly defending what you think are
right beliefs. I urge those who were part of this decision to move beyond a
mere expression of “regret” and to consider confession and repentance for this
disrespectful process. Sadly, the handling of this situation misses the
mark. https://timetotellcanada.blogspot.com/2022/06/read-missing-pages-from-new-book-on.html
CRAIG CRESSMAN ANDERSON
Thank you for publishing Dora Dueck’s heartfelt eloquent response.
Please resist pressure to remove it!
LORI MATTIES
This official response shows again how little understanding these decision
makers have of the issue of women in ministry and the experiences these women
have had to endure as they have tried to follow the call and invitation of God
for their work. I doubt there are many pastors of any gender who have not had
to navigate the growing questions about inclusion within the church. Mary Anne
was brave enough to describe what this journey has been like for her. It is
very much a story about being a woman in leadership. I, to, am disappointed and
angry that her experience has been silenced. I can only conclude that such
silencing is a reaction of fear toward the inevitable reinterpretation of what
it means to be faithful in the context of our age.
JEFF TAYLOR
Whenever any change is at hand the more cautious of us warn of “slippery
slopes,” as if all change leads to an unstoppable slide downwards into
depravity. But that’s just not true. Change can just as easily take us a step
further upwards, nearer to the mind of God whose thoughts are not always our thoughts.
“For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, love, and a sound
mind.” – 2 Timothy 1:7.
TANYA RATZLAFF
This is disappointing and sadly, expected from Mennonites in Canada.
Women have been censored for centuries and there’s finally an opportunity to
hear their voices…yet they’re censored once again?!
WALTER THIESSEN
The grace and humility that was apparent in the pages that were so
unfortunately deleted are a contrast to the lack of grace and humility in this
official response from the CCMBC. That contrast speaks for itself. Thanks to
you, Dora Dueck, for your heartfelt words in reply.
RYAN KARGEL
It seems to me the unanimity of these comments is indicative of a
greater problem. Some leadership in the conferences may not be headed in the
same direction as many of the members. We are ready for this conversation. It
isn’t a danger to our faith, and we are not afraid. Open discussion is part of
who we are, and in 2022 this discussion is now critical to our peacemaking
doctrines. As we have too-recently learned, people of the LGBT community are
not the “other”, but are our parents, siblings, friends, and partners. They are
us. The community isn’t going to magically vanish and save us the trouble of
self-evaluation and critique. While the denomination is somehow still debating
whether girls can be trusted on stage, the rest of us are generations past that
question, and have become eager for even more inclusiveness. Openness of
narrative should dominate here.
BRYAN BORN
At the risk of facing considerable opposition, I thought I would stumble
into this extremely treacherous minefield of a discussion. I’ll begin with a
few observations.
First, it appears the author of the disputed piece has
accomplished what every author desires when they write for the public – lots of
people are reading those three pages. Probably far more than would have ever
read it had it not been excised from the book.
Second, a quick perusal of the
comments section here, and at other sites, would indicate that she has garnered
considerable support for her position.
Third, we are in a place where it has
become extremely difficult to have a serious conversation about the merits or
demerits of what she has written. However, instead of the commenting on the
editorial process, the recall, or the way it’s being used to promote or discredit
certain views, I want to address the content of those pages, in particular, the
references to two passages of Scripture.
Here’s my brief perspective on the author’s use of Genesis 27 (story of
Esau’s ‘blessing’ from Isaac), and I Samuel 8 (where God grants Israel’s
request for a king). To be frank, I am somewhat surprised that anyone would
seriously use these texts to argue for an inclusive position in terms of
accepting sexual intimacy outside of a covenantal relationship between a man
and woman.
Consider for a moment the character of Esau. I’m quite sure that he
is not included in any list of the ‘heroes of the faith.’ Do you really want to
make Esau your exemplar? And even more concerning, study the ‘blessing’ he
received. Personally, if I had been him, I’d go have taken a hard pass on that
‘blessing’.
When it comes to Israel’s request for a king (I Samuel 8), I suppose it
is a little more ambiguous, but certainly not an unqualified endorsement.
Through the prophet Samuel, God warned the Israelites that it would be a
disaster: “When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you
have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you on that day” (I Sam. 8:18).
Clearly this prophecy was fulfilled in Israel’s history. And yet, someone would
argue that this passage is an appropriate passage to bolster their position? I
find that rather bewildering. Perhaps there are more compelling biblical
arguments for making a fundamental theological/ethical change from what the
church has believed and taught regarding this topic for millennia? If so, I
would suggest that those promoting a progressive position on this topic, and
others, work harder at developing a biblical apologetic. Unless, of course,
what the Bible has to say on this topic and others is no longer their concern.
GEOFF DUECK THIESSEN
When confessions of faith and pastoral credentials are weaponized; when
censorship is used as thought control for the preservation of a theology rooted
in “what has always been”…this is when a new reformation is called for. What
kept me in the MB world was opportunities to work out my own faith through
inquiry within a safe community at MBBC/Concord/CMU. There is still opportunity
for us to see the violence here and shift, but it must be done quickly as lines
have now been crossed which signal that we have more than ever traded plow
shares back in for weapons.
SUE SORENSEN
Editor Dora Dueck’s impassioned, intelligent, and committed response is
in stark contrast to the patronizing and offhand tone of the official
statement. This does seem to be one of those “one step forward, seven steps
back” moments in the institutional church. The boards’ action speaks loudly about
the silencing of women past and present and the very-much-related silencing of
other marginalized and disempowered individuals and communities. It is a
blessing that Christ’s church can be found everywhere and is not confined
within narrow walls and narrower ideas.
TIM NEUFELD
Commenting from south of the border here… All excellent points in the
above comments. One of the most interesting pieces in this statement is the
very conspicuous defense (as part of a larger justification) that the Executive
Boards are “made up of men and women leaders.”
This seems an odd thing to lead
with. Yet, a quick check of the directories on both the CCMBC and USMB websites
reveals some telling data. Of the 20 CCMBC Executive Board members, six are
women (30%). Of the 18 USMB Leadership Board members, just two are women (11%).
Both national directors are men.
On the American side of the table, all the
board offices (chair, vice chair, etc.) are held by men, as are the pastoral
positions (five district ministers). At a study conference in January of 2019,
the USMB leadership doubled down on the assertion that women cannot be
ordained, yet adamantly pronounced a new era of opportunity for women (just not
as lead pastors), conveying affirmation in all other roles.
The dismal data
above points to a very different and gloomy reality for MB women. And the
contradictory message that women are valued but only up to a certain point is
further fortified in the decision to censure a woman’s personal experience,
then release a statement of justification rather than an apology. Which, in the
end, makes this book profoundly important, beyond anything the creators ever
could have foreseen.
LAURA KALMAR
I recognize that our current culture makes it extremely challenging to
be a leader, with secularization, intense polarization and pressures on so many
fronts. But the leadership of the church needs to do better – to be a witness
of community at its best, to have enough courage to engage in tough
conversations, to be messengers of Jesus’ gospel of reconciliation.
I disagree with the decision made by the boards to remove part of Mary
Anne’s story from On Holy Ground. And I take issue with the process.
The fact that the editor, writer and other contributors were not
informed of the decision is simply unacceptable. The manuscript was available
far before it went to print (I know my chapter was edited and ready to go
almost a year ago), suggesting there was ample time to review and make
decisions using appropriate processes, including consultation and conversation
rather than last-minute reaction.
Did board members even have a chance to read the whole book? I would
plead with each one to read the whole volume to fully understand the
experiences recorded. These are critical voices – reflecting the work of the
Holy Spirit among us as Mennonite Brethren – and should not be dismissed. These
are enlightening journeys. And I know that each one (mine included) was
submitted with some fear and trepidation, knowing our stories could be
dissected, judged, ignored or dismissed. Which is, sadly, exactly what
happened.
The act of silencing voices and creating a culture of fear has created a
toxic environment within our denomination, resulting in the departure of many
fine and godly leaders. I believe this grieves the heart of God, who calls us
to a posture of love, faithfulness and reconciliation (which, ironically, was
the very message of Mary Anne’s story).
In the 2018 CCMBC board review, moderator Bruce Enns outlined several
commitments, including: 1) endeavour to create a culture where people feel
heard; and 2) commit to changing our posture toward those who disagree with us,
and strive to be more humble in engaging with them. The process by which
content was removed from On Holy Ground without consultation has made a mockery
of these commitments.
ANNETTE VOGT
As an ethnic Mennonite, I’m embarrassed, once again, to read about such
a powerplay and to be associated with such a narrow minded, judgmental group.
Such disrespectful actions by those who feel they represent God and the church
is surely a sign of deep insecurity in ones faith. God’s spirit and grace is
ubiquitous…far-reaching. Those who waste their effort, in God’s name, to shut
down stories of grace and peacemaking are sadly misguided and stand in the way
of promoting a faith worth joining.
JAMES KLASSEN
I remember (in the sense of historical memory) that once upon a time
Mennonites were the derided because they didn’t fit the categories of their Age
– because they chose to stand against the status quo, holding that true
evangelical faith meant clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, caring for the
destitute. They knew what it meant when the prophets reminded ancient Israel
about their obligations to the “widow and the orphan”, code language in the
first Testament for the marginalized.
Standing where our Mennonite forebears
did perhaps wasn’t intended as a political act, but it had enormous political
implications, and they paid for it with their lives. And they did this with
outstretched hands to help their enemies, even as their enemies confiscated and
burned their books (“Joriaen Simons Burned”, The Martyrs Mirror; Part II, p.
179, 1685 ed.). This I remember, with gratitude.
That was then. Today, we seem to have forgotten. We are beset with
amnesia. We have forgotten Matthew 25 and Jesus’ story of the sheep and goats,
where the question posed to the characters in the story is not whether they
believed the right things but about how they treated those who lived on the
margins. In our forgetting we have moralized faith to extremes. Now, what we
believe appears to be more important than how we behave. We are no longer known
as a people who clothed the naked, fed the hungry, and welcomed the stranger.
Now, we are known for our ‘right beliefs’. And, it would appear, we are pretty
vigilant about that.
In the 1991 film “Hook”, a grown-up Peter Pan has gone corporate. He has
forgotten who he is and now is all about making the deal. He is angry,
aggressive, conniving. He has become a “taker”. But when he and his family
travel to London for Christmas to see his aunt Wendy, she confronts him.
“Peter, you’ve become a pirate.”
Perhaps amnesia can lead to piracy.
Let’s not become pirates. Welcome others as Christ has welcomed you
(Paul).
