The headspace of this particular writer, you need to understand, includes a section for denominational trivia. At least “trivia” is the way some of my friends would describe it. But often, recognizing the trivia leads to an understanding of the issues.
The now-famous but still anonymous seven children seized screaming and kicking from their parents in the quiet southwestern Ontario town of Alymer, were from a Church of God congregation. Given my penchant for “trivia pursuit”, the first question was: “Which Church of God?”
As it turns out, the question actually has some validity.
Consider some of the wording of Ontario Court Justice Michael O’Dea’s order, returning the children to their parents. True, he said that the parents were to refrain from spanking until family court deals with the case on September 6. But there was a further directive — this one to the Family and Children’s Services (FCS) of St. Thomas and Elgin. FCS must continue to learn about the religious traditions and cultural background of the family.
That last item should involve at least some research into which particular kind of Church of God this group is — and is not.
I wondered, at first, if it was part of any one of the following three groups.
- Church of God in Christ (Mennonite), also known as Holdeman. Characteristics of this group include refraining from the use of radio and television. Their men wear beards and white prayer caps adorn the heads of their women. They follow many of the traditional Mennonite teachings, including that of pacifism.
- The “Needed Truth” Brethren, a conservative manifestation of the Christian Brethren (often nicknamed Plymouth Brethren). The Needed Truth identify their churches in particular cities as the “Church of God in (name of city)”.
- Church of God (Anderson), a group that is part of the Holiness movement, whose other denominations include the Salvation Army, the Free Methodists, the Wesleyans and parts of the Evangelical Missionary Church. The Anderson part of the name relates to the fact that its roots are in Anderson, Indiana.
As it turns out, the last named is closest to the mark. The Church of God in Alymer is a part of a 1910 split from the Church of God (Anderson). It people sometimes refer to themselves as the “restoration group” because they restored some of the earlier and, perhaps, more rigid practices that the Anderson group had abandoned. They have churches scattered throughout the United States and Canada.
The suggestion that they are a Mennonite group comes from the fact that they have attracted a fair number of Mennonites into their church, including some recent immigrants from Mennonite colonies in Mexico. To that extent, they are not unlike many evangelical denominations that attracted many Mennonites into their churches in areas where Mennonite settlement was heavy. In more recent years, the trend has gone the other way, as well. Some Mennonite congregations — Willingdon and Northview in British Columbia and Meeting Place in Winnipeg — are among Canada’s largest evangelical churches, with congregations respectively of 3,800, 3,500 and 1,500. And those churches include many non-Mennonite names on their rolls.
When the FCS people do what Justice O’Dea wants them to, there are several things they will want to try to understand. And they relate both to style and substance.
One of the key figures in the Alymer controversy is Henry Hildebrandt, the pastor of the Alymer Church of God. In dress and appearance, he looks like the leader of a conservative type of Mennonite Church. But, when he opens his mouth, he is pure black preacher. Close your eyes and you might think you are listening to E. V. Hill or T. D. Jakes, the two Afro-American preachers who have found the most acceptance in non-black evangelical circles in North America.
It would appear, if the television shots are an indicator, that the music draws strongly from southern gospel — both white and black variety. It has a joyful tone, with strong harmony and give no hint of the sort of stern outlook that insists that discipline of children is useless if it does not hurt a bit.
These are matters of style.
But Mr. Hildebrandt has been enunciating the substance of the church’s teaching about the use of the “rod”.
And several organizations have been supporting the church’s view in response to what they see as the “liberal fundamentalism” of some social service bureaucrats. These are the people who want to ban spanking without taking into account the religious or cultural context in which it is practiced.
Home schooling organizations are particularly concerned, because they involve people who, by virtue of their family structures, are both the parents and the teachers of their own children.
One of longstanding issues surrounding a biblical approach to discipline is its impact on the children who receive it.
As a pre-teen, I was exposed to the Bible conferences that formed a significant part of the Christian Brethren culture. Every Thanksgiving and Easter, hundreds of CBers would gather for holiday weekend preaching sessions followed by sumptuous meals. At one of those conferences, the speaker was Donald McIntosh, a missionary to the Dominican Republic, who was known for his then radical contemporary interpretations of controversial passages of scripture.
On this particular occasion, he was holding forth on the text in Ephesians that speaks of the need for children to obey their parents. And all the parents were eyeing their own broods, dressed in Sunday best, to ensure that they were listening carefully.
Suddenly, Mr. McIntosh shifted gears and moved into the second part of that particular passage, where parents were admonished — and here I am quoting from the Living Bible — “Don’t keep on scolding and nagging your children, making them angry and resentful. Rather, bring them up with the loving discipline the Lord himself approves, with suggestions and godly advice.”
Now, there were a number of the church leaders who were not too happy with Mr. McIntosh expounding on that passage in a group where there were both parents and children present. I know for a fact that some of those leaders had a few strokes of verbal discipline for their wayward guest preacher.
Indeed, there were children present who were resentful and angry with the kind of treatment they received from their parents. But the elders opined that the kids were resentful because they were brats whose wills needed to be broken. Who was right? In retrospect, who knows?
Perhaps some of the anti-spanking movement feeds on resentment built on misunderstood relationships developed in particularly doctrinaire homes. But Justice O’Dea has done well to include in his judgement, the admonition to the FCS, to make sure that they understand the religious traditions and cultural background of the family.
And the shift from Hill politics to denominational trivia, for this particular edition of my column will hopefully shed a bit of light the way some Christians do “family” politics. The spanking question, indeed, fits within the cluster of life and family issues that captures the attention of a fair number of federal politicians. For that reason, it will be always with us.
For more stories on the Aylmer case, which has been covered extensively in The National Post, see the articles dated July 25 (“Leader of controversial Church has criminal past”), July 24 (“Mennonite body criticizes congregation’s use of the rod”), July 20 (“Exiled families question Canada’s religious freedom”), July 18 (“Religious families from Ontario flee to Indiana, Ohio”), July 17 (“Town divided over exodus of parishioners”), July 16 (“100 flee after kids seized: pastor”), July 14 (“Aylmer pastor says its time to reconsider spanking”), July 12 (“Save us from social workers on crusade”) and July 10 (“Judge refuses to reunite children, parents”), in addition to the stories linked to above.
