Connie offered some thoughtful background into why she wrote the book, and the process of bringing the story of her grandfather and father to life in this way.  Some of her insights included:

• She wrote the book as a gift to her father, and in order to preserve his memories of their family’s flight fromRussia.
• She identified her work as part of the ‘witness narrative’ genre: stories told to bear witness to the suffering and experiences of others.
• She spoke about both the ethics and aesthetics involved in this kind of work.  The ethics of this kind of writing involve both being true to the historical facts on the ground (political, geographical, historical) as well as true to the personal memories and experiences.  Connie used lots of interesting quotations from Frederick Buechner and Paul Ricoeur to illustrate some of the theoretical aspects of writing memoirs with which she had to come to terms.
• At one point, she experienced a kind of writer’s block concerning how to bring one particular part of the story to life–in speaking with her father about it, he said that perhaps it would be helpful for her to use her imagination, alongside the historical reconstruction, in order to bring the story to life.  That was a freeing moment in the process for her, as, ironically, her informed imagination was able to bring the actual story to life.
• Initially, she self-published the book, and hadn’t planned on wide distribution.  However, she was encouraged to seek a publisher, and landed with the fine Ronsdale Press—which isn’t geared toward Christian or Mennonite books.  She’s been very appreciative of the positive reviews that the work has received.
• A variety of photos she uncovered from various family sources helped organize and energize the narrative of the book—she shared a few of those with the class, and then read excerpts from the book that connected to the photos.

All-in-all, a great session!  Connie was thoughtful, and her reflections on bringing this particular story to life made me consider the ways in which we each have stories that reflect different aspects of both the human experience and divine purposes.

Biographies:  Next week will feature Connie Braun discussing her book:

“The Steppes are the Colour of Sepia: A Mennonite Memoir”

http://ronsdalepress.com/authors/connie-braun/

http://www.amazon.com/Steppes-Are-Colour-Sepia-Mennonite/dp/155380063X

The Steppes Are the Colour of Sepia: A Mennonite Memoir invites the reader to embark on a journey that traces the paths of ancestral memory over the steppes of the Russian empire to the valleys of Canada’s Fraser River. Connie Braun’s narrative continues where Sandra Birdsell’s historical fiction Russlander has left off – back to the catastrophic events of twentieth-century Europe. Braun intimately ushers us into the life of one extended

Mennonite family, and in particular the life of her father and grandfather, living under the terror of Stalin, and later, under the military expansion of Hitler’s Nazi Lebensraum in the Ukraine. In the vein of Janice Kulyk Keefer’s memoir Honey and Ashes: A Story of Family and Anne Michaels’ Fugitive Pieces, Braun gives voice to the narrative of dispossession. In a memoir that is historically faithful to documents, letters, old photographs and personal testimony, Braun offers a lyrical second-generation witness to her family members and to all other Canadians who have suffered displacement in history’s disasters, and whose obscure stories must be told. In doing so, she honours the spirit of resilience embodied by the refugees who have created and transformed Canadian society.

“Connie Braun’s memoir is a remarkable and readable account of Soviet Communism of the early twentieth century, not only as an event in world history but as a crisis that continued to unfold for generations in those who eventually emigrated to Canada.” — John Bentley Mays.

(review courtesy of Ronsdale Press)

So, the second installment of “Christians and Nazis”  by Steven Schroeder did not disappoint and once again answered and raised tons of great questions.  Thanks again to Steve for sharing with us not only his great knowledge of the subject, but his keen insight as well.

With the theme of this (mini)series being “Christians and Nazis”, Steve highlighted a few examples both of Christians responsible for atrocities and others who stood against them.  Perhaps more disturbing are the examples of the actions and inactions of the Christian church in Germany which furthered the atmosphere of anti-Semitism.  Some examples of this include …

-  Increased efforts to convert Jews.  In doing so, they created “Jewish-Christian” congregations … the implications of which are obvious – the Jews would never be allowed to fully integrate into the church.
-  They did not protest atrocities (Operation Reinhard, ex.), whereas they did protest the so-called euthanasia program which targeted neighbours and fellow Germans.
-  Supported the Nazi war effort.
-  In some cases were directly involved in atrocities.

With examples given (and many more left unsaid) of self-professed and active Christians responsible on the upper levels for grave atrocities – Franz Stangl … commander of Treblinka death camp, and Maximilian Grabner … chief of Block II in Auschwitz (notorious for being the worst and most sadistic part of an incomprehensibly evil place) –  we are left grasping for ways to understand how this could even be possible.    

Was this behaviour specific and isolated to mid-20th century German Christians?

Were they forced into this activity against their will?

Is it possible that they were swept up by an irresistible force like the Nazi party and therefore not responsible for their actions which were clearly and terribly contrary to a Christian faith?

Were they Christians at all?

That last question seems to provide the most comfort – if true.  If we can classify them as “not Christian”, we can eliminate the uncomfortable next question of wondering if we could be capable of the same things.  How do we know if someone is a Christian?  What are the criteria?  If it is, as was suggested in class, that Christians must possess a certain measure of grace, peace, mercy, and love, can we disqualify these self-professed followers of Christ?  The problem is if actions can disqualify us from Christ’s mercy and grace, then we are all in deep water.  If loving one’s neighbour is the benchmark, we have a serious problem.  If we must always stand up for what is right in every circumstance, we fail again.  If being a peacemaker is the standard … you get the point.

There can be no doubt that followers of Christ should embody those qualities, but the unfortunate facts are that very often we don’t.  Okay, but are we are striving towards those qualities, and is that what makes us Christ followers?  Well – what does striving look like and how often do you have to do it in order to be considered as striving hard enough?

It’s too easy to look backwards through the lens of history and judge people.  The German people grew up ingrained with the belief that Jews were inferior – as Steve mentioned, it was the rare exception to come across someone who was able to transcend that prejudice.  Even in light of that, more of them should have stood up – they should have ignored the consequences and known what was right – but there I am judging again.  What if, laying aside political allegiances and present understandings, history (say 50 years from now) judges the U.S. led war in Iraq to be gravely unjust and immoral – what will those future Christians say about the early 21st century church of Americans?  Will they condemn those Christians who held active high ranking military positions and those Christians who stayed home but voted their approval?  More importantly perhaps, what will they think of American churches which actively supported the war and declared it just and godly?  Could they look back through history and smugly declare that there were very few real Christians present at that time?

Is it a fair comparison – probably not, but the point is not that it is exactly the same but that we are all, throughout our lives, given opportunities to stand up and do the right thing.  If we fail will God reject us?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in April 1933 said, “The church has an unconditional obligation towards the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community”.  His words went mostly ignored.

These are some of the things I think we need to talk about as a Christian community …

- Are we standing up for justice regardless of who the victims of injustice are?

- What makes a Christian, a Christian?  What binds us, what is essential?

- What is more important, loving your neighbour, or evangelizing them?

- Are we as Christians sometimes guilty of burying our heads in the sand and pretending our dark secrets don’t exist?

- Do we as Christians believe we are morally superior to other people?

This week in Coffee Talk will feature Dr. Steven Schroeder continuing his exploration of the theme – Nazis and Christians.  Steve is a professor of history at UFV in Abbotsford specializing in Twentieth-century German history, modern European history, Holocaust, Religion, Arab-Israel Relations.

Last week, Steve gave a very thorough (well … as thorough as you can be in one hour) and interesting presentation of European history and the rise of the Nazi party.  This week will be a continuation of the discussion especially pertaining to the relationship between Christianity and the Nazis.  Discussing this connection can make a Christian feel a bit queasy considering our obvious position on Nazi Germany through the lens of history, but uncomfortable or not, as Steve pointed out last week, something like 98% of Germans at the time would identify themselves as Christians.

It would be easy and convenient to say that they were not “real Christians” – real Christians would not behave or believe in this way.  But, what is a real Christian, how can we say they were not what they say they were?  If behaviour is the deciding factor in determining the realness of our Christian faith, a lot of modern Christians are in trouble … yeah, I’m looking at you – and I’m no different.

What do we do with the statements by post-WWII Jewish people who say that, to them, the cross was a symbol of fear and oppression?  To them Christ’s victory looked like death and unspeakable evil winning the day … like the end of everything decent.

That is a dreadful thought for us to wrestle with and ponder as we consider what it looks like to the world when we declare Christ’s victory today.

This week in Coffee Talk will feature Dr. Steven Schroeder discussing Nazis and Christians.  Steve is a professor of history at UFV in Abbotsford specializing in Twentieth-century German history, modern European history, Holocaust, Religion, Arab-Israel Relations.

His work focuses on conflict and peace building in modern Europe, particularly in Germany. His Master’s thesis (UBC)

examines the Mennonite community of West Prussia during the Nazi era. Supported by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), Steven conducted research in Europe in 2004-2005, and he has presented his work at conferences in Canada, Germany, Austria, and the United States. He is currently revising for publication his dissertation, titled: “Reconciliation in Occupied Germany, 1944-1954.” This project explores the motivations and actions of individuals and NGOs from Germany and abroad who labored during the first decade after the Second World War to establish peaceful relations between the German people and their wartime victims and enemies.

All that, plus he is a pretty cool and interesting guy.

David Ewert speaking on the origins of the bible …

Unfortunately, David Ewert was unable to lead this discussion last Sunday due to illness.  We are hopeful that we will be able to reschedule this for another Sunday morning in the near future.

Thanks again to Bruce Guenther for his encore performance in Coffee Talk last week.  After a brief review of the discussion from the previous session, the forum was opened up into a broader conversation with some good questions asked and, as always, more good questions generated.

Menno girls - more reasons for choosing the MB denomination

A very brief paraphrase of what Bruce suggested as factors to be mindful of if one were considering a change in church/denomination:

1. The health of the church/denomination.

2. Theological compatibility with that church and/or denomination.

3. A critical assessment of personal reasons for leaving.

One question I am still personally struggling with on this issue is the idea of denying the self in favour of a communal theology – that personal choices and a cobbled together theology (Christianity a la carte) may in fact represent a form of Christian consumerism.  The problem I have is that I don’t see any possibility of escape from that.  Whether I choose my own theology or choose my own denomination, it ultimately still boils down to me making a choice.  Clearly there is value in working together in community to form a common approach to understanding and worshiping God.  I see this as one more thing we have to hold in tension – rely only on your church to inform your beliefs and guide your actions or forge a new (to you) belief system and go it alone without any reliance on the wisdom and discernment of others – neither appears to be such an appealing path to travel.  Where that perfect middle ground lies is indistinct.

The discussion meandered from Baha’i-like tolerance to nationalism to humility with Murray Nickel to blame for two of the three.  The ugly side of denominationalism compares to nationalistic pride and leads to division and contempt.  On the other hand, is there anything wrong with believing your denomination has some of the answers that -

A. Other denominations are missing, and

B.  The world is in great need of.

Case in point, I believe that the MB convictions on peacemaking and non-violence are something that the world needs more than ever and that evangelical churches are lacking more than ever.  Can we offer this view to people of other denominations with genuine humility if we believe it to be better than their ideology which appears to endorse violence?  Can we be legitimately tolerant of other Christians who sometimes spread doctrines that we believe to be detrimental to the welfare of the planet (and the human beings therein) and destructive of Christ’s message of love for humanity?

I think I find approaching those people with humility a bit easier when it is just me and them talking and not my denominational talking points vs theirs.   I can have a conversation with another person and express my opinions and beliefs and actually listen in return to their interpretation of what God teaches us and we may even understand each other and arrive at a place (at worst) of tolerance.  Come with your denomination on your side at it can be MBs vs Baptists in Wrestlemania XXII.   Nobody listens to anyone else because they already know what (insert inferior denomination here)’s are like.

I wonder, in the end, if my denomination will matter to God or if it isn’t just what I personally did to show God’s love and grace to the people around me, what I did personally to help overcome injustice in the world, what I did personally to love like God loves to the best of my ability.  Is that personalization of responsibility, Christian consumerism?  If it is, is that so bad?

Join Current Issues - Church Council Dialogue/Issues with Shawn Neumann and Myron Penner.  Current Issues is held in the Multi-purpose room which is cleverly disguised as a gym.

The fireside room on Sunday - don't go in there!

http://coffee.domain7.com/2009/09/20/bruce-guenther-oh-they-matter/

The first of a series of Christian Biographies will be the event for Coffee Talk … this coming Sunday featuring Holda Fast Redekop.