Mennonite

1

After reading this letter, please take a moment to write your city council representative (a map of the OKC City Council wards can be found at this link). And if you are lucky enough to live in ward 2, please write Councilman Ed Shadid (ward2(at)okc.gov)and thank him for not co-sponsoring this terrible law.

Dear Mayor Mick Cornett (mayor@okc.gov),
Dear Ward 1 Councilman James Greiner (ward1@okc.gov),
Dear Ward 3 Councilman Larry McAtee (ward2@okc.gov),
Dear Ward 4 Councilman Pete White (ward4@okc.gov),
Dear Ward 5 Councilman David Greenwell (ward5@okc.gov),
Dear Ward 6 Councilwoman Meg Salyer (ward6@okc.gov),
Dear Ward 7 Councilman John Pettis (ward7@okc.gov),
Dear Ward 8 Councilman Mark Stonecipher (ward8@okc.gov),

I am an Oklahoma City resident and regular voter in city council and mayoral elections.

I just read in the newspaper (The Oklahoman: Oklahoma City councilwoman introduces law on panhandling)that each of you have cosponsored an ordinance that would criminalize panhandling in the city of Oklahoma City, punishable by a fine of $500. I strongly oppose this ordinance.

In this letter I want to explain, from my perspective as an attorney and as a minister, why you withdraw your co-sponsorship of this ordinance.

First, wearing my attorney hat — I work part-time as an attorney, often in a criminal defense context in both Oklahoma County and OKC municipal courts and have seen first hand what often happens when poor people are charged with minor offenses. Defendants in these contexts are stuck with a terrible set of choices:

  1. Some are able to scrape together the money to make bond but then not have enough money to pay an attorney Others stay in jail and get their court-appointed public defender but end up sitting in jail for a long time to have their day in court. The lucky few win despite these long-shot odds but most never really have a fair shot at justice.
  2. Others plead guilty (since most are not represented by counsel, they often take a foolish naked plea) and then are stuck in an endless cycle of trying to make payments on court fines and probation costs. When down the road they stumble and are not able to make a payment, a bench warrant goes out and the cycle continues.

What is the end result of all of this? The taxpayers end up paying for most of it, since the fines often end up not being paid but the costs of incarceration and courts still are incurred. And as for the defendant, what about them? Does a criminal conviction help them in any way? No. It makes it harder for them to find future employment and better themselves.

This ordinance is a short-sighted approach to real problem. By imposing massive fines on the panhandlers, you are pushing them further into the mire of our rotten system. I agree that panhandling is not a good way to alleviate the problem of poverty but there are better ways to deal with this issue. I encourage you to actually take some time and visit with the many churches and organizations in this city who are working with our homeless population, or better yet why don’t you take a walk down the street from City Hall and talk to some of the homeless citizens of our city? They might have some good thoughts for you about not only this ordinance but all of the other ways that our city government pushes the poor down rather than helping them out.

OK, let me move on to discussing this with my minister hat on. Besides being an attorney, I also work part-time as the Minister of Peace and Social Justice of Joy Mennonite Church (we meet at 504 NE 16th St, just south of the state capitol).

I understand that most of you are church members and/or have publicly identified yourselves as Christians (see
Cornett, Greiner, McAtee, White, Greenwell, Pettis, and Stonecipher), so I think it is relevant for most of you to share scripture text that tells the teachings of Jesus on the current situation.

Luke 6:20-26 (NRSV):

Then he looked up at his disciples and said:
‘Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
‘Blessed are you who are hungry now,
for you will be filled.
‘Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.

‘Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice on that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.
‘But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
‘Woe to you who are full now,
for you will be hungry.
‘Woe to you who are laughing now,
for you will mourn and weep.

‘Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.

In light of this text, here are some questions for each of you…

Who is Jesus blessing, the rich or the poor?

Who is Jesus cursing, the rich or the poor?

Whose side is Jesus on? the rich or the poor?

And whose side is Jesus on today? How would Jesus answer the troubling problem of homelessness? Would he impose $500 fines and even jail time on those who have no resources or would he find a better way?

I hope and pray that you reconsider your decision to co-sponsor this bill, but I will be adding some action to my prayers by speaking to my congregation and our friends about the evils of this proposed ordinance.

Please do the right thing. If you want to alleviate the pain of homelessness, fix it with proactive help and not fines and jail time.

James M. Branum

0

Updated with some grammar/spelling fixes as well as some additional material (particularly in the conclusion) on 1-13-2015:

Today I bought the latest issue of The Mennonite Quarterly Review. Yes, this is THE issue, the one that gives in-depth discussion of the case of serial sexual abuser John Howard Yoder, and the issue of sexual misconduct in the church generally.

Before moving on, I should mention that a review of this issue can be found in The Mennonite magazine and the actual full issue (200+ pages) can be bought here.

This evening I ended up reading three of the articles in the issue. There is so much that I want and need to say, but for now I want to make a few comments while the pain of reading this is fresh.

First, Rachel Waltner Goossen’s article “‘Defanging the Beast’: Mennonite Responses to John Howard Yoder’s Sexual Abuse” is a disturbing but very thoroughly researched account of the nature of Yoder’s history of abuse. While most of the Mennonite world has been aware in some way of this abuse, this article tells a great deal which had not previously come to light. Some of these key revelations include:

1. Yoder used his position of power and influence to coerce female students into sexual acts. (this was not just a matter of harassment, as it has been framed sometimes in the past)
2. Yoder created an environment at both AMBS and at Notre Dame that was hostile and dangerous to women.
3. Yoder actually exploited the female student-led campus feminist movement to pursue his agenda of abuse, often co-opting feminist language as part of his persuasive rhetoric.
4. Yoder abused women not only at his schools, but also at conferences and other settings, including overseas in multiple countries.
5. Contrary to the way that the story has been spun by the Mennonite Church over the years, Yoder never repented. At best he apologized for “misunderstanding” the desires/intentions of the women he was pursuing. Also his “restitution” that was supposed to help victims with the costs of counseling was a very small amount ($1000). And little if any of this money ever went to help those victimized by Yoder.
6. In 1995, Yoder actually sought to sever ties with the Mennonite Church (asking that his membership be transferred from his Mennonite congregation in Elkhart to a local Lutheran church. He made this request DURING the process of the discipline while his ministerial credentials were suspended. Yet the church chose to effectively ignore his request, presumably so that he could still be claimed as a celebrity Mennonite theologian. (Page 64-65)
7. Stanley Hauerwas (who previously urged Yoder to cooperate with the process of accountability before his conference – page 59) pressured the Indiana-Michigan conference to hurry up the process, so that Yoder could be fully restored to ministry (page 62). The conference agreed to do this by way of a public statement in 1996. The conference hoped Yoder would make a public statement of apology. He did not do this.
8. AMBS administrators knew about Yoder’s abuses for years (since at least the late 1970’s). While there were repeated attempts to reign in Yoder’s conduct, Yoder was not actually pressured to resign from AMBS until 1984.
9. Yoder continued to teach at Notre Dame after his resignation from AMBS. Yet he continued for some time to have a key to AMBS campus buildings and often was on campus.
10. Yoder was actually asked to come back and teach a guest class on campus in 1997, which he did in the fall.
11. Yoder died a few weeks after that class ended, but a week before his death, he wrote a letter to a woman seeking to engage in a “confidential conversation” about his issues. The language in the letter used the same rhetorical pattern as was seen in his previous sexual harassing communications to women in the 1970’s and 1980’s). – page 79
14. Mennonite Church USA Archives has a box of materials on Yoder’s case that is restricted from access until 2047. As far as we know, no one knows what is really in this box.

Beyond these revelations, I want to mention that I appreciate the author’s strong refutation of the idea that Yoder’s misconduct was fueled by the awkwardness of an un-diagnosed case of Aspergers’s Syndrome (page 77). As an aspergistic person myself, I appreciate this clarification.

The second article I read was Jamie Pitts’ “Anabaptist Re-Vision: On John Howard Yoder’s Misrecognized Sexual Politics.” I appreciated this article partially because I know Jamie (he was my professor in my Theology I class that I just completed) but also because he gave powerful expression to where I hope that the Mennonite academic world is, or at least, should be moving towards:

(In the last twenty years) few male Anabaptist-Mennonite theologians have allowed our vision to be significantly re-envisioned by feminism. John Howard Yoder . . . has remained the public face of Anabaptist-Mennonite theology during that time. His relationship to feminism is problematic, to say the least. Until recently, when new attention to the non-radicalness of Yoder’s personal life has forced the issue, male scholars of Yoder’s work, such as myself, have mostly avoided explicit, sustained reflection on feminist perspectives and concerns. . . Our vision must be revisited.

Lastly, I read Paul Martens and David Cramer’s article “By what criteria does a ‘Grand Noble Experiment’ fail? What the case of John Howard Yoder reveals about the Mennonite Church.” I began this article with a hopeful attitude, hoping that the authors might shed light on how Yoder’s ideas on experimenting with alternative ideals on sexual ethics were flawed from the start by his failure to engage frankly and honestly with those he was in a covenant relationship with (including his wife, the schools he taught at, and his church), as well as to explore the ways that Yoder failed to recognize his own power imbalance, as it relates to the women he pursued.

Instead, Martens and Cramer gave their readers something different, a terribly constructed attempt at comparing Yoder’s “experiment” with the efforts of conscience-led Mennonites of today to seek LGBTQ equality in our church. Certainly the authors gave lip service to some of the ways the two controversies are different, yet did not really get to the heart of the matter, leaving the comparison hanging in the air as if it were valid.

I strongly disagree. Yoder framed his sexual misconduct as a kind of “noble experiment,” but in reality it was something else. I think that Yoder could have ethically explored and even tried out some of his alternative ideas about sexuality and singleness, but only after doing the right thing, by either divorcing his wife or making a consensual agreement with her that they were going to have an open marriage. Instead Yoder wanted to “have his cake and eat it too.” And so he stayed married.

Yoder also abused his position of authority on campus and in the academic world, using his rhetoric of his “noble experiment” as his justification, but in practice keeping the “experiment” secret. His language of “experiment” was really just a justification for his pattern of abusive behavior towards women.

For LGBTQ individuals who are seeking to serve in ministry openly in the church, there is not the same kind secrecy involved. Rather these individuals are being called by congregations for service and then having their credentials considered by regional Mennonite conferences. One such case is Theda Good from First Mennonite Church in Denver. (discussion of her case is found beginning at page 186 of this article). Theda has not hidden her sexual orientation. Neither has our congregation or her conference. Rather Theda, her congregation and her conference are acting in obedience to their respective and collective consciences. Yes, I suppose one could frame this move as an “experiment” but this is not an insane double-talk secret style Yoderian experiment, rather it one that is open and done in the context of Christian community.

This applies as well to issues of marriage, and church membership. Advocates of LGBTQ equality (including myself) are very open about what we are about. Yes, this is in some ways a theological innovation but it is rooted in our views of scripture, our conscience, and our understanding of the call of Jesus to love our neighbor.

I am beyond livid that the authors that this comparison was a fair one to make and I don’t understand why the MQR thought this article was worth of inclusion.

That said, I am appreciative of one part of this article:

At this point, we hope it is clear that the claims that Yoder’s actions are little more than expressions of social awkwardness, Asperger’s Syndrome, or a mild case of autism, are only relevant – if they are relevant at all – in rationalizing Yoder’s awkward performance of experimental sexual relations… An appeal to these conditions simply cannot explain Yoder’s careful narrations of marital and non-marital relations or the larger framework within which they function. – (footnote 57, page 185)

Conclusion

I will be doing a lot of praying and thinking in the coming days, but my initial feelings about both the aftermath of Yoder’s abuse and the complete failure of the Mennonite Church’s denominational institutions to protect women for so many years leaves me feeling very, very disloyal to Mennonite Church USA. I’m glad that the light of truth is being shined in the dark places of the institutional church (and can personally testify to the ways that AMBS has changed — which I think now has a majority female student body). Yet, it is hard to feel very invested in an organization that has been, until very recently, painfully negligent.

And I will have to also admit my own culpability here. I argued just a few months ago that “it is possible to respect Yoder’s ideas and not respect his actions.” Now though that I’m questioning this. I don’t know if I can ever read Yoder again, or at least not without constantly hearing the internal inconsistency of this beliefs, as the great modern theologian of nonviolence was in fact a serial sexual abuser.

And I must admit that the article by Martens and Cramer doesn’t help matters much. Using the case of Yoder as an excuse to attack Theda Good and other advocates of LGBTQ equality is not appropriate and further solidifies my belief that church hierarchy all too often is willing to throw oppressed people under the bus for the sake of appearances. In Yoder’s day it was young female students. Today it is LGBTQ folks. I would rather the denominational structure die than see it continue to perpetuate oppression.

So those are my thoughts for tonight.

Actually I have a few more thoughts…

1. Given the serious nature of the contents of this issue of MQR, I think Mennonite Quarterly Review should consider publishing the entire issue for free online. It is too important to be buried in church and academic libraries.

2. Probably the statute of limitations is long past, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if one of the survivors of Yoder’s abuse could sue Mennonite Church USA and then subpoena the sealed box, described as “The John Howard Yoder Papers at the Mennonite Church USA Archives-Goshen, ‘Sexual Harassment Charges and Conference Discipline’ documents in box 240, restricted until 2047 (50 years after Yoder’s death)”?

3. As difficult and costly as it might be, Mennonite institutions need to be ready to make financial reparations to women victimized by Yoder. While I realize that budgets are strapped, the costs of the ongoing damage done by Yoder should not be the responsibility of those victimized by Yoder.

Thinking creatively — what if every congregation of MCUSA took up a special offering on a given Sunday to be given to a perpetual fund to provide funding for counseling and other needs of those who were abused by Yoder? Such a special offering could be taken at special services of lament for the collective sins of the Mennonite Church in covering up the sins of Yoder, as well as discussing the work still to be done to undoing gender-based oppression.

2

I have had this blog post percolating for awhile in my head but today seems like a good day to write it. It will be long and meandering so it will probably only be of interest to close friends. That’s ok because this is my blog and I write it mostly for myself.

For those of you who know me, I’m a free-thinking Mennonite, drawn to the tradition’s emphasis on Jesus’ radical teachings on nonviolence and social justice. I’m also a seminary student and work part-time at my church in peace ministry.

But I also have lots of doubts about the Bible and orthodox Christianity, especially regarding the issue of atonement and hell. In fact, I should rephrase that. I don’t have doubts anymore, I just don’t believe that way. I do not think that God has an insatiable blood thirst to kill and torture sinners that is only quenched by a substitute human sacrifice of his own son.

I remain committed to my church and faith tradition because I believe in the power of community and Mennonite ethics (as I discussed in a previous blog post) but I have felt a longing for a spirituality that I have not found there (or in any other Christian tradition).

Explorations in Judaism

My wife and I have fallen in love with Jewish faith practice over the last couple of years (something she has written about on the website Kveller.com here and here). We love the tradition’s orientation of having most of the rituals and holidays centered on the family and home, but also we love the tradition’s embrace of free-thinking and even disagreement. We began our observance with Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year) two years ago, then we started celebrating shabbat (sabbath) with joyful Friday-night shabbat dinners and at least an attempt to maintain our restfulness into Saturday. Then we started doing other holidays – Sukkot, Tu Bishvat, Haunakah, Passover, Purim, and Yom Kippur. We tried to be faithful to the traditions by reading heavily from a mix of Jewish authors, but also adapted some elements to our family’s context. And then we took it a bit further by adding a nightly singing of the Shema Yisrael to our bedtime routines. And I’m working on learning Hebrew.

We of course aren’t observant in every way. We haven’t made any attempt to do kashrut (kosher) and are taking a more liberal approach to some of the prayers. And we have adopted some services which are traditionally done in a synagogue for home observance. — But this is part of the tradition too. Many liberal Jews (especially from the Reform and Reconstructionist traditions) pick and choose those mitzvot that are life-affirming and meaningful to keep, while not following those mitvot that are not life affirming. I like to think of this as being creatively observant.

It has been a joy doing these things. There of course are moments of tension — times when I wonder if our borrowing of another culture’s faith practices is a kind of cultural misappropriation or not, and times when I wonder if we are just attracted to the exotic and different (rather than the mundane aspects of the Christian traditions we grew up in). But most of the time I feel clarity that these faith practices are in fact transforming me and that God is at work in this.

Spiritual practice brings physical transformation

A recent example of this transformation is going on as we speak. It began shortly before Passover. I told my wife that I was wanting to get serious about getting in shape and losing weight (I am diabetic so this is always a struggle), so she suggested that I begin my diet during passover, by keeping the traditional rules which forbid the eating of chametz (fermented grain products like bread and beer) during the 8 day passover festival. So I decided to do this. I quickly ended up turning this practice into a low-carb diet, in which I ate lots of meat, veggies and dairy but no carbs except those in veggies and those in Matzah (unleavened bread). I also started working out most days of the week.

And then a miraculous (at least in my eyes) thing happened. My yo-yo-ing blood sugar levels evened out. My moods stabilized. I became much less irritable and generally was just happier. Certainly the better diet was a part of it, but I think part of it was also that I was really committing to life-giving spiritual practices, and that this was doing very good things to me.

When Passover ended last week, my wife made another suggestion. Traditionally Jews Count the Omer, a 49 day time of expectancy and waiting for the Torah to come. Many observant Jews refrain from certain actions during this season (not listening to music, attending weddings, etc.) as a way of making this time sacred and a time of mourning for great losses. So my wife said that I should maybe just continue my diet as my way of counting the Omer.

I decided to do this (except that I’m now just eating a limited number of carbs per day — I’m shooting for no more than 80 grams per day, rather than avoiding chametz). I’m also trying to do the daily prayer for the season and maintaining my exercise routine. I make mistakes along the way (I had one bad day when I was depressed and broke down and ate a donut) but I am resolved to keep trying. Obviously this is about my physical health, but I also do believe that our bodies and souls are intertwined and that this will do good in other ways as well.

Questions of Religious Identity

I have been thinking a lot lately about the issue of religious identity (see my previous blog post on my celebrating 10 years at Joy Mennonite Church). I feel very committed to my local congregation. It is faith community that is open to all and that has chosen to maintain its identity as being centered on a commitment to the nonviolent way of Jesus’ teachings. This is something that I can strongly affirm.

At the same time, I’m not sure that I’m a Christian, at least in the way it is often defined. Most people say that a Christian is someone who agrees with the historic creeds of the church and I don’t. I have too many issues with creeds, partly that I’m agnostic on the subjects of Jesus’ supposed virgin birth and resurrection, but also that the creeds pay no attention to the most important part of Jesus’ life: what he taught and how he lived. And most daming of all, I don’t believe that Jesus “died to save us from our sins.” Rather I believe Jesus allowed himself to be martyred (as others have in history) to show us how far one should go for one’s deepest beliefs.

In some ways I think would be more comfortable in the Jewish tradition (seeing Jesus as a great rabbi and teacher but not as a savior) but that leaves me with another problem. The Jewish conversion rituals are all very exclusivistic. So far every school of conversion that I’m aware of asks this question (with some variations in wording) of converts: “Do you renounce all beliefs you may once have held in any other religion?” (examples: here and here) This is not something I am comfortable with.

Does embracing Judaism mean that I have to forget the ethical (and arguably Jewish) teachings of the historic Jesus?

Does embracing Judaism mean that I have to renounce my understanding of the Buddha’s teachings on the way to end suffering?

Does embracing Judaism mean that I have to leave the spiritual community that has made my life so rich and full?

I don’t think so.

And so I will continue to feel more and more Jewish every day, and yet not really be Jewish. I’m praying that someday there might be a way possible for someone like me to find a universalist Jewish community of some kind to connect with. (or else that I am able to someday find that I have Jewish roots somewhere in my family tree) But I want to make this connection without severing the other God-given connections in my life.

Thank you for staying with me in this long and meandering read.

0

The last few weeks have been tough in Mennonite Church USA. A lot of long-standing issues have reached a boiling point of contention, including the role of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bixsexual and transgendered) people in the church, biblical hermeneutics and the delicate balance of power between a national denomination, regional conferences, local congregations and individual consciences.

While some are calling for a way forward that keeps us all united (allowing space for the exercise of different understandings of conscience), there are other voices calling for division, by way of the exercise of power. Recent announcements by the leadership and members of some regional Mennonite conferences (Lancaster, Ohio, Franconia, Virginia, New York and others) seems to indicate that some of the regional conferences may leave the denomination unless changes are made to the polity, so that dissenting groups and individuals are thrown out.

I do think miracles are possible and that is not in vain to pray for a unity that right now seems impossible (one bit of encouraging news was the expressions of unity that arose a recent church-wide meeting). But I also think that we should be thoughtful in considering the issues at stake. Unity may be difficult if not impossible to achieve (absent of course divine intervention in the hearts of the women and men involved).

The big issue (or at least the one that is forcing all of the other issues) is that there are two camps of people who hold to strong convictions on the issue of LGBT inclusion. One camp believes that homosexuality is sinful and that the toleration of sin in the church is poisonous. For these folks the issue of inclusion is more than an issue of “life and death” but rather an issue with eternal consequences. This of course makes compromise nearly impossible.

The second camp (which I am, admittedly, a part of), believes that excluding our LGBT brothers and sisters from the church in sin, and that it is our call to prophetically speak out against this oppression, not only in society but also in the church. The issue is important because it goes to the very heart of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. Selling out on this issue is unimaginable.

Speaking only for myself here (and not for all inclusion-minded folks) this is a tough spot to be in. While I want to find a way to promote unity in the church, I must say that I also do not want to be complicit in oppression. I don’t to be part of a church that actively promotes oppression (be it the exclusion of women from the pulpit, a teaching of the necessity of racial segregation, or the exclusion of LGBT folks from the full life of the church). The only way that I can imagine staying involved in such a church, would be if I were staying as part of a continued prophetic witness against that evil.

Considering both camps and our collective desire to both follow our consciences, there may only be three options left for us: (1) maintain the discomfort of the status quo (with both camps trying to persuade the other camp to change its position), (2) part disagreeably with lots of bitter conflict (something Anabaptists have a long history of doing), or (3) part amicably, seeking to find points of connection despite our institutional separation.

These three options are the same options that many struggling married couples find themselves in. After lots of bitter tears and attempts to make things work, couples can be left with the options of (1) “keeping up the front” of marriage to the outside world but growing further and further apart, (2) going through a bitter and ugly divorce, or (3) deciding to have an amicable divorce, with the intent of preserving some level of relationship for the sake of the children or another common purpose.

The third option is hard, but it can work. I have seen this option in action in the lives of my loved ones and friends, folks who were once married (and went through a lot of pain in their marriages), but now have decided to get along, to be kind to each other, and to work together to raise their kid as co-parents.

What would such a “divorce” look like for MCUSA? I would argue that we first have to ask “who are the children,” or to put it another way, what are the common causes that unite us and that transcend our differences? I think one obvious example is MCC (Mennonite Central Committee). Currently several denominations from across the Anabaptist perspectve (including the various branches of the Mennonite, Mennonite Brethren, Brethren and Amish traditions) unite together to do the MCC relief sales and to do world relief work around the world. These groups disagree on many issues but they are united by their belief in the importance of feeding hungry people and caring for those on the margins.

There are other examples — Mennonite Disaster Services and Mennonite World Conference — both come to mind. The point is that we can work together in these areas without staying tied together as a single denomination.

Yet, by separating into separate denominations, both groups can maintain the integrity of their convictions. Each group can make their own collective decisions on issues like church polity, ordination and marriage.

I see merit with this approach but there would also be terrible costs. Existing institutions (colleges, seminaries, camps, denominational offices, mission efforts, etc.) would have to find ways to exist with possibly diminished funding or be shut down. Some congregations would be geographically isolated from other congregations of the same denomination. Arguably the witness to the world of Mennonites being a “people of peace” would be hindered by a split, a little over a decade after the two major Mennonite denominations merged. And most importantly, relationships would be hurt. Ideally individuals and congregations would find ways to stay connected but this won’t always happen. These costs are not ones to be paid lightly.

I don’t know if we are at the place of “no return” in the denominational marriage of MCUSA, and so I will keep praying for a way for us to stay united. But I also will now be praying for what might happen if we have to part ways, that we can find the heart and will to be loving in our parting, and to stay united in our “co-parenting” of the common causes of our churches, no matter what happens.

0

The Hunger Games: Dystopian inspiration for resistance or just more “bread and circuses”? – by James M. Branum, March 2014 paper for Cultural Hermeneutics at Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary

I also have a video to supplement the paper (part of an oral presentation we did in class):

3

This is an update to my previous blog post: Religion (Part1) (which was a response to PeaceArena.org: Getting Religion)

What a difference 4 months makes in one’s life! When I wrote part 1 of this series, things were going pretty hunky dory at my primary church home (an urban Mennonite church in OKC). Like every church we had our problems and tensions, but overall things were ok.

Today though, things are not ok. I have faced some pretty vicious attacks by those close to me at my church and my days there may be numbered. And strangely enough, the blog post Religion (Part1) is one of the things I have been attacked over.

While I don’t want to focus too much energy responding to negative spin, I do want to try to clarify things a bit.

My critics have made two criticisms of my post.

The first charge is that they say my post made it sound as if I “would be an atheist if I had the courage to be one” and that it is wrong for a minister of the church to say this.

In response to this charge, I’ve re-read my post. I can understand the confusion due to my imprecise language. However, in large part my intended continuation of the post was going to discuss in more detail WHY I DO BELIEVE. I’ll explain it more detail in part 3, but in short I believe, not because of logic reasoning, but rather because of intuitive knowledge. Certainly I think that it is possible to be intellectually consistent and faithful at the same time, but I also believe that logic by itself does not necessarily lead to faith. — Or to put it in other words, I don’t think the bulk of my atheist and agnostic friends lack faith due to their not thinking logically enough.

And I would go a step further. I think that many people (myself included) are turned off by the attempts to use logic as an apologetic tool. Too often the tool is used clumsily, inconsistently and even maliciously. I think it is much better to say that faith is a mystery, a grace given by God through the Holy Spirit.

Now as to me saying I admire atheists for their courage, well I do admire them, just as I admire anyone who is willing to state the truth as they understand it even if the catch flak for it. And I admire other things about my atheist friends. I admire their love (that isn’t tainted by fears of punishment for not loving) and their passion for the causes they believe in too.

The second charge that has been raised against me is that it was wrong for me to say that “God is too big to fit into only one religion.”

I stand by my statement. It is true. And I’ll go further. I don’t believe in a literal hell either. I think religions at their best moments all point to the Divine. They are all imperfect but they all have something to teach us. Christianity speaks the clearest to my heart so that is the tradition I identify with, but I have no problem with seeing Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. as my brothers and sisters, as fellow seekers of the Divine.

When I wrote the prior blog post I was speaking for myself and only myself. If I were speaking on behalf of the church as a whole, I would have to frame things differently. Most members of my church know what I believe on these subjects and significant number agree with me. But I have not tried to cram these ideas down anyone’s throat or force others to adopt these views. I’ve accepted the fact that other members of the church believe in an exclusivistic kind of faith. I think those who believe this way are wrong on this issue, but they are still my sisters and brothers. I hope they feel the same about me. When I speak to the church through a sermon, I try to find messages that will encourage and uplift and challenge everyone, not just those I agree with.

Anyway there’s a lot more to say. I really want to go back to discussing the nature of faith and doubt in more detail (especially relating it back to the book A Prayer for Owen Meany, but I did want to write this post in an effort to bring some extra clarity.

To be continued . . . Religion (Part 3)

0

I currently have a very small amount of investments with the MMA Praxis mutual funds, but I don’t think I will for much longer.

For my non-Mennonite readers, I should say that MMA is rooted in the mutual aid tradition, the idea that members of the faith community should take care of each other. But like a lot of good ideas, it got institutionalized and then its values got diluted.

MMA today offers a bunch of different products – insurance, investments, credit union, etc. And the profits of MMA fund lots of good stuff. But I’ve found out some things that have made me question the whole company, in particular the investing strategy of the Praxis funds.

Continue reading Beware Mennonite Investors — MMA Praxis Mutual Funds invests in evil: Fox News, payday lenders, private prisons, and more

0

I wanted to update my regular readers on a change in my personal life.

I’m in the process of becoming a dual-member of the Oklahoma City Friends Meeting (the Quakers), while maintaining my membership and ministry work at Joy Mennonite Church.

It’s hard to begin in explaining this decision, but the short version is that both faith traditions speak to me and I feel a great deal of kinship and connection with both communities. I spent a lot of time praying and thinking about this decision, and spoke to several friends about the decision, and I am now at peace with my decision to embrace both faith traditions. (for those who don’t know, I became a Mennonite I think in 2003, and I’ve been attending the OKC friends meeting since the spring of this year)

What I love about the Mennonite tradition is the strong emphasis on the teachings of Jesus (including his teachings on non-violence), their radical belief in the separation of Church and State (the Anabaptist movement which the Mennos are a part of, were some of the first to argue for this seperation — more than 200 years before the US Constitution was drafted), and the traditional emphasis on simplicity and solidarity with the poor.

What I love about the Quaker tradition is the emphasis on mostly silent worship (that enables a deep connection with the divine), the tradition’s unique decision making processes (not just consensus, but seeking unity), and at least for the part of Quakerism I feel drawn to, a strong belief in Universalism (and that the Divine cannot be constrained by the language we use to explain it).

And what I really dig is that both faith traditions complement and deepen the experience of living out the other tradition. Or to say it another way, being a Quaker helps me to be a better Mennonite (and vice-versa).

Also it is not just about two broad traditions but rather two local communities. Neither community is perfect, but both communities have a center that is focused on love.

To tell the longer version of the story, I’ll need to go back a little bit and recount some of my faith journey to date.
Continue reading Part 1- My decision to be both a Quaker and a Mennonite