Book Review: Road Signs for the Journey – Chapter Review: 2. God’s People Then

Good Bible Hermeneutics takes a deeper look at the Bible passage by understanding everything about it: history, geography, culture, the people and everything else. If Conrad L. Kanagy wants to use Jeremiah to examine the Mennonite Church in the USA, he’s got to help the reader fully understand Jeremiah’s message in the first place. This includes understanding Jeremiah as a prophet and understing the people he’s prophecying to, like what they believe politically and religiously.

The interesting thing about Conrad Kanagy’s backround information is that he flip flops on its importance. On one hand, Kanagy says that “scholary views of the book of Jeremiah do no matter” (p.35), is not part of the task at hand(p .34). He also says it’s more important to focus on what it means now then what it meant back then (p. 34-35). On the other hand, Conrad does go into detail about the book’s background information. He lists all the kings Jeremiah prophecied under. He draws up a map of Israel, Judah and the surrounding territories. He describes where the people of Israel and Judah are religiously and politically during that time. While it may seem like Conrad Kanagy is contradicting himself, I’m glad he did. His background information on the book provides a fuller understanding of Jeremiah’s role as prophet and the message he’ll deliver.

Conrad Kanagy helps set the message of the book by explaining the all-encompassing roles of a prophet. The roles Conrad Kanagy gives Jeremiah as prophet is a futurist, a time keeper, a social analyst, an activist and a blasphemer. I had two favorites from this list. The first was the social analyst. As prophet, Jeremiah was called to make the people aware of where they were religiously and politically. Sometimes when people become so enamored in their culture, it’s hard to realize where they truly are and whether they are doing the right or wrong thing. A prophet must tell it like it is, whether the people like it or not. Perhaps Conrad sees himself as a prophet in this way. His statistics will tell the Mennonite congregations, “This is they way it is, whether you like it or not.” The other favorite I had was activist. As a prophet, “Jeremiah not only spoke prophetically for the truth, but also acted prophetically on behalf of the truth” (p. 41). I once heard that stating a problem without providing a solution is just complaining. Jeremiah is not just a complainer about the people falling away from God. He’s going to do his to contribute to the people turning to God.

There are two roles that Conrad Kanagy gives a prophet in which I agree with the concept, but I believe he could have chosen a better word. On the lighter end, instead of calling Jeremiah a futurist, I would have called him a visionary. Jeremiah did not merely see the future, but he also saw what it meant in terms of the people moving forward spiritually. For example, not only did Jeremiah foresee the destruction of the temple, but he knew that meant it was sign of hope for the future, for the people would be able to have relationship with God without the temple, holy of holies or the ark of the covenant. On the heavier side, I really don’t like Kanagy calling prophets “blasphemers.” Blasphemy is the worst sin in the Old Testament, if not the whole Bible. Blasphemy is detestable and unforgivable to God. Why? Because of its definition itself. Blasphemy is speaking lies about God as if it is the truth. It is a misrepresentation of God. Prophets is no way misprespresented God. What they really did was get the people back to the true meaning. The easiest example would be Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus, God the Son, spoke fervently against what the high priest, chief priests, and all the other religious rabbis taught. It wasn’t the Scriptures that the religious leaders were teaching from that Jesus spoke against, but rather their intepretation of it. Jesus saw the Pharisees and Sadducees using God’s Law to uplift themselves and weigh down those “sinners” not like them. That’s what Jesus spoke against. What Jesus really is doing is getting them back to the true meaning of the Scriptres. Certainly Jesus, God the Son, is not a blasphemer. In the same way, Jeremiah is no blasphemer. He is in no way speaking lies about God. Instead, Jeremiah is attempting to get the people back to the true meaning of God, the Scriptures, and the temple. Maybe Kanagy should have chosen the term “revivalist” instead of “blasphemer.” Jeremiah is truly a revivalist, reviving the people from an idolatrous faith to a real faith with the true God. I understand why Kanagy might have chosen the term “blasphemer,” for it might have seem like blasphemy to the people. But this is in no way a call for Christians as or a whole or Mennonites specifically to be blasphemers. It’s a call for Mennonites specifically but to Christians a whole to return to the true meaning of Scripture, instead of emotions or tradition.

Conrad Kanagy concludes with a conclusion that could easily serve as an introduction for the next chapter. Conrad Kanagy already starts to connect the Mennonites of today to the people of Jeremiah’s time. Conrad states some of the sins of the Mennonites as the same as the people in Jeremiah’s time: apathy, disobedience and idolatry (p. 43). As Jeremiah stated to his people, judgment will come if Mennonites do not turn from this sin. But Jeremiah’s message is double-edged, and in a good way. If the Mennonites repent of their sin, God will deliver them and bless them. The question that remains is, “Are Mennonite really guilty of such sins?” The next chapter will reveal if this is true.

Book Review: Road Signs for the Journey – Chapter Review: 1. Road Signs and Guideposts

This summer, the church I am attending, Stony Brook Mennonite Church, is combining the adult Sunday Schools. Together, the adults will be reading and discussing Roads Signs for the Journey: A Profile of Mennonite Church USA by Conrad L Kanagy. Simply put the book is a church member profile project. It reports the data recorded from surveys of Mennonites in the United States and it interprets that data. This interpretation of data can be anything from predictions of the future to suggestion for improvement. When I was introduced to the book, I was currently reading unChristian by David Kimmerman and Gabe Lyons, another book that analyzed and evaluated data. Skimming through it, I found it interesting because I could connect the data between the two books. I am excited for this book that we’re studying. Unfortunately, because it’s the summer, I naturally have other plans that will not allow me to attend every Sunday School class. Yet I want to be engaged in the discussion. So I am going to do a chapter-by-chapter review of the book, plugging in my thoughts and comments for every chapter.

Naturally, as most survey books, the first chapter explains the author’s intent and how the author came about to write the book. In this “making-of” chapter, authour Conrad Kanagy admits he had some hostility with his idea. One of the big problems Kanagy had was that some church pastors were not on board because they saw the surveys as mere information collecting. He quotes a pastor saying, “We don’t need anymore information that doesn’t lead to transformation.” I know how Conrad feels. I often too have felt adversity for presenting information or doctrine in a Sunday School classroom because it doesn’t lead to application, transformation, or a feel good feeling. Kanagy makes himself well aware of this criticism and he comes preapred. It can be summed up two words: display and suggest. Corad wants to display where Mennonites are right now, where they might be going, and give advice along the way. And Conrad Kanagy doesn’t like where it’s going.

Just like most first chapters in most survey books, the first chapter introduces the basic data and his basic interpretation. What Conrad Kanagy’s data shows is that most Mennonites in the United States live similiar lives to most middle class white Americans. This disturbed Conrad, as well as myself, because it’s not Christian and it’s not Mennonite. It’s not Christian because Paul gives many verses in Bible telling us not to conform to the world, but to be transformed by living counterculturally. It’s not Mennonite because the founding Anabaptists fathers lived by the creed, as found in Acts, “We must obey God rather than men!” Anabaptists beliefs, from simplicity to infant baptism can be traced back to living counter culturally. It’s as if the Mennonites today are becoming less Mennonite. Fortunately, Kanagey seems a glimmering light at the end of the tunnel. There is a small blip on his survey radar that has continued to successfully live counter culturally. They are the urban Mennonite churches, which mainly consist of minority races. Conrad believes the rest of the Mennonites in America can learn from these minority churches, and he plans to use their practices as suggestions to improve.

Another topic I’m glad Conrad Kanagy is tackling is the role of politics in the Mennonite life. Personally, I have heard mixed beliefs among Mennonites when it comes to politics. Some of the first Mennonites I first met seemed to be so against the political proccess they even refused to vote. Then I met Mennonites who simply stated that Mennonites were allowed to vote, but the church will not sway anyone to vote a certain way. In high school, the Mennonites I met believed interaction with politics was necessary to bring about social justice. All in all, what I’m trying to get to is that the answer I have received has been mixed. I wondered if Conrad’s data would give a more solid answer. What Conrad discovered was that the Mennonite church was heavily influenced either by the conservative evangelicals or liberal mainline protestants. Either, like the conserative evangelicals, look to politics to create a moral civil religion, or like the liberal mainline protestants, they look towards politics to bring about social justice. Both use politics, but by doing so, both unknowingly embrace the dicotomy of them too. By embracing the conservative evangelical’s moral civil religion, they have “abandoned the costly requirements of the cross, compromised the truth of the gospel, created questionable alliances with political leaders…and abandoned the poor and needy of society” (Kanagy 26). By embracing the liberal mainline protestant’s social justice, they have “ignored the power of Jesus Christ to overcome sin in both the social structure and individual lives” (Kanagy 26). I believe this is where it would be good for Mennonites to sit down and have a council to write up their doctrine of government involvement and political involvement. I hope Conrad Kanagy agrees with me and goes further into this.

Corand Kanagy believes the best Biblical passage to approach this study from is the book of Jeremiah. I will admit that when people announce they plan to talk about Jeremiah, I am a little hesistant to listen. It’s because of so many misuses of the book. Too many times I have heard people center the whole book around Jeremiah, making it a feel good story, when the real message of the book is far from it. Too many times I have heard people (mainly charsmatics) use the book in a militaristic way, turning Israel to America, and thus turning to message to call America into a moral nation in order to get God’s earthly blessings. I’m glad Kanagy does not use Jeremiah either way. It seems that Kanagy gets what Jeremiah is all about: a severe warning for God’s people to change the ways they are going wrong or face dire consequences. I can’t wait to see how Kanagy exegetes Jeremiah in the next chapter.