Cincinnati Mennonite Fellowship
News From The Pews

Pastor's Perspective by Joel M.

This fall I have been auditing a class, ``Faith and Suffering,'' at Hebrew Union College. Stick with me on some of the details of the class so I can get to a broader point. The class focuses on the biblical book of Job and the way that it has been interpreted by Jews throughout history. After reading the text of Job during the first class session, we have moved on to study the way Job has been interpreted in the Septuagint (the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into another language, Greek), the Testament of Job (a first century re-telling of the Job story), the early rabbis, and medieval philosophers. We are working our way to the last class sessions when we look at how Job has been understood in a post-Holocaust world. Job deals with the suffering of the righteous, and the way that the book has been interpreted in each age is a reflection of the
particular circumstances and ideologies of that time.
Along with the fascinating discussion and details of the
history of interpretation, the course has been a lesson on good listening. The professor has emphasized listening to each text on its own terms, trying to understand why this particular group of people thought and believed this way. Why did the Septuagint, for example, insert verses at the very end of the book that speak about Job receiving a reward at the
resurrection of the dead, an idea not mentioned in the Hebrew text? Why did the early rabbis feel the need to find moral fault with Job to justify his suffering, even though the story seems to uphold Job as morally upright? What can we learn from the philosopher Maimonides' point that Job was morally upright, but intellectually lacking? Had Job been wise, Maimonides claims, he would have perceived his injury in a broader perspective and thus been, at least mentally, delivered from suffering.
Much is gained when trying to see the world through the eyes of another, even if our world is quite different than that of the other, or, perhaps, especially if our world is quite different than that of the other. This, I have realized, is part of what I get to try and do in a more broad sense among my classmates. As the only Gentile in the room, I am challenged to try and understand the Jewish perspective on its own terms; listening for what is behind classmates' comments and perspectives and the
professors' insights. It's thrilling and also humbling to try and see through the eyes of another. Reform Judaism, the liberal movement of Judaism of which HUC is a part, has much to teach us when we listen in this way.
Even more broadly, listening to the other on their own terms is a skill greatly needed in our time. Perhaps we could even think of this as a key spiritual discipline. When we talk about homosexuality (as we have been doing as a congregation), when we engage others in political discourse (as happens in a unique way during the election season), when we have arguments with a spouse, child, friend, or co-worker (as tends to happen from time to time!), good listening may be one of our best witnesses to being a part of a kingdom ``not of this world,'' as Jesus says in John (18:36). Our goals for listening and engagement are different than those typically promoted in our culture. Disagreement becomes respectful and is pointed away from the winning/losing model and toward the seeking understanding model when we attempt to see through the eyes of the other.
I believe that we at Cincinnati Mennonite Fellowship are and can further become practitioners of good listening. It is part of our witness to the Beloved Community already present among us.
………………………………………………………………………………………………

When in NeedAsk Old Friends by Karen D.

Arman Habegger, Richard Geiger, Joyce Schumaker and Linda and Bob Sutter from Pandora Grace Mennonite Church came to the rescue on Saturday, August 28, 2010. They all showed up early Saturday morning ready to roll and brush paint on the house next to CMF. Those five persons, members from our congregation and facilities committee (Bob W., Greta H., Tim H., Jim M., Steve R., Steve H.) and two men from the neighborhood began to roll paint at 10:00am. After a short break for lunch prepared by Rosella C. and myself, they were all back out in the hot August sun. By 4:00pm the job was done (incredible!), the brushes were cleaned and the paint paraphernalia put away. After a treat of fresh strawberry pie, the Grace group was back in their van, happy that they helped out their city friends and relieved they could get back home in good time to do chores and work in their gardens.
We hope that we can return a favor in kind to the Pandora church when that time comes. They heard our call for help and with no hesitation, heeded that call. We hope we can demonstrate such grace to Grace.

(Grace Pandora is the home church of Kevin A. and Ed and Karen D..)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………


Inaugural Safe Sanctuaries Training by Jane P.

CMF took another step toward aligning our fellowship with accepted standards of child
protection with the volunteer training event on August 29. The Safe Sanctuaries Plan adopted by CMF points to a yearly training of Sunday school teachers and others who care for our children. The training is intended to highlight the practices most likely to protect children from sexual exploitation while at the same time protecting volunteers from unwarranted suspicion. In good Mennonite fashion, we began with lunch provided by the able cooks on the Safe Sanctuaries Committee. Jennifer Jorgenson, Director of Treatment Services at the Family Nurturing Center in Florence, KY, led a discussion of the most frequent settings and circumstances in which adults prey on children. In this first training session we decided to focus on basics, and it was good to hear them from an authority like Jennifer with her wide experience in the field of trauma treatment with children and teens. We reviewed the "open door" and "2-adult" policies, which by now have become pretty much standard practice at Sunday morning events and at off-premise youth events. Participants were walked through the steps of reporting an incidence of abuse--who to tell (and who not to tell in order to protect the confidentiality of those involved) and in what sequence. SS Committee hopes to hear from participants on aspects of the training that were most/least beneficial. Our format this year was one of several we could have chosen, so the feedback of participants will be valuable in tailoring the training for August '11. Thanks to all of the volunteers who committed precious weekend hours to this event.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Process of CMF's Dialogue and Discernment on Same Sex Orientation:
Personal Reflections by Carol L.

It has been a privilege to serve (along with Ron H . , Judy H . , Greg K . , Keith L . (chair), Joel M . , and Elizabeth N N before she moved) on the Dialogue and Discernment team which was commissioned by Council in response to the resolution passed at the Columbus convention that congregations begin a process of dialogue and discernment around issues related to same sex orientation.
At our first meeting we decided that it would be good to assess what the range of views was starting out. Deciding to survey was the easy part. Actually coming up with a document that we all felt comfortable with took considerable time and effort. Ron found over 60 items on various surveys available on the internet from which we selected and revised questions and also wrote several others ourselves. Over several extended meetings we had intense conversations about the language we would use. For example, we chose most of the time to use the term same sex orientation rather than homosexuality because we felt same sex orientation was more descriptive and less pejorative. We read the survey questions from the perspective of someone who is gay. For example, we chose to change ``If Jesus were here today, he would have formed relationships with gays as he did with tax collectors and prostitutes'' to ``If Jesus were here today, he would have formed relationships with gays and called them to serve in the church'' so that gays were not grouped together with people assumed to be sinners. Finally we came up with 22 items that we thought were balanced and carefully worded. It was disappointing to learn that in spite of our best efforts, one of our items cited a teaching position as the actual position of MC USA. We hoped that this misstep would not contribute to a lack of trust starting out. We discussed the survey briefly in a large group meeting scheduled in May and more in depth, with the results, in the small group discussions planned for the summer.
So when the congregation met on May 23 ^rd during Adult Forum it was to establish ground rules for dialogue and to discuss responses to the experience of completing the survey. Typical of our CMF group the discussion about guidelines was lively and comprehensive. On the one hand there was the affirmation of allowing all voices to be heard and of practicing listening from others' perspectives, while at the same time not shrinking from continuing conversations even when there was disagreement. We decided that a commitment to confidentiality in the small group discussions was necessary so that persons could speak without fear that their views would be repeated later. I felt proud of a group spirit upholding the value of not injuring others. One person's comments that she would be waiting to see if persons continued to relate in the same way after they heard her views stayed with me. It would be ironic and sad if in
exploring our viewpoints related to same sex oriented persons, seen by many as ``outsiders,'' we would marginalize other persons and views. My stomach tightened. Would we be able to bridge that potential gap between CMF'ers? In that same meeting it became apparent the series of planned input sessions scheduled to take place during an extended Adult Forum during the four Sundays in August did not work for a significant number. Out team listened to this feedback and scheduled the input sessions instead for September. The Christian Education committee came up with a plan that delayed the start of the Sunday school year so that only a few adults would be taken away from the sessions for childcare. (All of us are indebted to Keith, Jane, Violet, and Abbie for making that possible.)
The result of shifting the input sessions to September was that CMF experienced what some dubbed ``Sextember'' since the worship theme had already been planned, ``Body and Soul: Healthy Sexuality and the People Of God.'' No banners of welcome were erected outside the church, as in, ``Join the Mennonites for a stimulating Sextember,'' but it was a unique focus on the gift of sexuality, a gift we Mennonites have often found difficult to talk about.
Attendance at the input sessions was consistently high. More thorough summaries of the individual sessions are or will be available to all through e-mail. I will only note the highlights of the group discussion. In the sessions on homosexuality and the Bible led by Pastor Joel, the small groups reflecting on selected passages repeatedly acknowledged that those passages needed to be understood within a cultural context. The group questioned whether the New Testament advocated the breaking down of all purity laws, and there was a lament that the texts weren't clearer on this point. It was a new experience for many to examine Biblical passages through a LGBT lens. There was that question of how to think about sin. I came away from the third session on scientific understandings of same sex orientation which Greg and I had led with multiple questions and comments from the group ringing in my ears: If same sex orientation is not a choice, what does this mean about our acceptance? After hearing the scientific data presented, one person remarked that suddenly the discussion regarding the church's response to gays became a lot more complicated. What are the implications if sexual relationships meet needs beyond those of procreation, i.e., for relational intimacy? (A session on relational intimacy scheduled to be led by Judy H . and I was cancelled when I was called away following the death of my father.)
In the final session on MC USA's history and positions on sexuality led by Keith, one participant noted a discrepancy between the description of the healing and hope of the faith community in our Confession of Faith and the more exclusionary tone of the2001 Membership Guidelines for the formation of MC USA. Since both the Saskatoon (1986) and Purdue (1987) statements talk about sexuality as a whole, some wondered why has the church focused on homosexuality and seemingly avoided examining whether heterosexuals are living up to the standards the resolutions prescribe? How do we respond to those in the church who are sincerely concerned about the eternal salvation of those practicing sexual behaviors the resolutions consider to be sin?
The candor and openness in these large group discussions seemed to indicate
significant trust among us. In the coming weeks the small groups will be convening again to reflect on what they learned from the input sessions and to discuss their hopes (and fears) about how CMF proceeds. Our team will take this feedback to Council for its further discernment and leadership.
Lately this prayer is often in my mind: ``Discerning Spirit, be present with us. May we both seek to understand and find that we are also understood. May we be open to what you are calling us to be in this time and in this place. Amen.''

………………………………………………………………………………………………………