Pastor Doug's theological musings

Reclaiming Thanksgiving

2011-11-23T10:53:00.001-05:00

For this week’s blog post, I’m putting up part of the sermon that I gave at the community Thanksgiving service at St. Mark’s UMC.

Thanksgiving, at its core, must be about God. We have ample reasons to give thanks to God: God has created us, God shepherds us, God extends God's steadfast love to us for all time.

Our culture has lost the centrality of God in Thanksgiving. Instead of focusing on God, we so often focus on the food and the fellowship. It is not a “successful” Thanksgiving if the meal is not perfect, or if we don't have the opportunity to fellowship with our families. These are important parts of Thanksgiving, but we must return to the core reason for Thanksgiving, which is giving thanks to God for all God has done for us.

In his proclamation of a day of Thanksgiving, Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of “the watchful providence of Almighty God” and the “gracious gifts of the Most High God.”[1] We need to focus in on this part of Thanksgiving, treating it as the main course of the holiday, rather than a side dish or an oft-forgotten piece of the Thanksgiving day meal.

How, then, can we do this? In my family, one of our Thanksgiving traditions consists of each member of the family sharing something from the past year that he or she is thankful for. While this can be a worthwhile activity, at times it can also simply be a way of tacking on thanksgiving to the holiday. We ought to put this as a central part of our meals together.

I would urge all of us to do this as we gather at our respective Thanksgiving meals, but with a bit of a twist. Instead of merely thinking about this at the last minute, perhaps we could each take time to ponder on God's actions in our lives over the past year. This preparation will allow for deeper sharing about the activities of God.

As we gather around different tables this week to celebrate Thanksgiving, may we truly take the time to see the work of God in our lives and to share our gratitude for that work. May we move beyond the simplistic understanding of Thanksgiving as a holiday of food, to a holiday where we give thanks to God for his steadfast love that endures to all generations.

[1] Kriston Moulton, “Thanksgiving: A Holiday for Believers and Non-Believers”, Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/thanksgiving-a-holiday-for_n_786254.html, Accessed 20 Nov. 2010.

Biblical Inspiration and Authority

2011-11-17T14:28:00.000-05:00

At District Conference last week, a query was brought to the conference by the Hopewell congregation that asked the question: “Does the Church of the Brethren still affirm the Bible as God’s Holy Word, embracing Scripture as the authoritative guide for our lives?” This query was returned to the congregation, but the issue is likely to return at next year’s District Conference. The discussion at the conference made it clear that there are some in our district, and perhaps in our congregation, who are not clear on what our denomination says on the issues of Biblical inspiration and authority. In addition, I have taken some time this week to look again at my understanding of these two important, interconnected issues. In thinking about this, my position does hold that the scriptures are authoritative in our lives as believers, and that they are inspired by God.

I read through the 1979 Annual Conference statement “Biblical Inspiration and Authority,” which has served our denomination well over the past 32 years. This paper offers several different views on Biblical authority and inspiration that are present within our denomination, including two which speak very closely to my own approach to these issues.

The first of these statements indicates “A third group of Brethren point to Christ as the only perfect Word of God. The Old Testament is judged by the New Testament, the whole Bible by the witness of Jesus Christ, our supreme authority. Jesus' teachings are the basic guide for faith and practice, the canon within the canon. The Bible was created by interaction between God and people and is a mixture of human frailty and the perfect wisdom of God. It points beyond itself to God.”[1] According to this view, the Bible must be interpreted in light of the New Testament, basing our beliefs and practices on Jesus’ teachings, and comes out of the interaction between humanity and God.

The second statement indicates “Another group of Brethren emphasize the Bible's roots in the faith community—written by the faith community, for the faith community. It is salvation history, the record of God's action. The focus of inspiration is the people. ‘The Bible is the touchstone to measure our experience against the record of God's interaction with his people. The authority is in the words and spirit, checked by Christian community today, a continuing channel for God's revelation.’ Themes and principles are emphasized in presenting its message for our day.”[2] The key part of this is the understanding that it is the experience of God by the Biblical writers that provides the authority and inspiration of the Bible. The Bible was not dictated word for word by God to the Biblical writers, instead, it was inspired by their continuing quest to understand their encounters with God.

I would certainly urge each of us to read through the entirety of the 1979 paper, which is linked to in my footnotes below. In addition to this, I would also like to provide a link to some reflections on the Biblical text by Joshua Brockway, who is the Director of Spiritual Life and Discipleship for the denomination. He has written two blog posts on this issue, located here and here. I would love to hear from individuals in our congregation about their views on these two issues.

[1] http://cobannualconference.org/ac_statements/79BiblicalInspiration%26Authority.htm, accessed 17 November 2011.

[2] Ibid.

“The Naked Anabaptist: Wrap-Up”

2011-11-03T14:43:00.001-04:00

As I look back over the blog posts in this series, and to the book itself, it is clear that “The Naked Anabaptist” offers some intriguing insights and reflections on Anabaptism. It has been helpful in shedding light on the basic beliefs of Anabaptism, and would certainly be a good primer for anyone who is interested in Anabaptism.
The seven core convictions that Murray discusses in his book can all be found, in some way, in the life of our congregation. It is clear that Anabaptism has been an important part of the faith formation within this congregation, and will continue to be so as we move forward. For me, reflecting on how I have seen these seven core convictions in the congregation’s life together has been a helpful way to really think about where our congregation is at this point. I hope that these brief reflections have provided an opportunity for those reading about them to think more deeply about what it means to be an Anabaptist. As I continue in my work here, it is my hope that we will be able to continue to explore the ways that we live out our Anabaptist heritage.

"The Naked Anabaptist" Core Conviction #7

2011-10-20T15:36:00.000-04:00

This week, we come to the seventh and final core conviction that Stuart Murray discusses in his book “The Naked Anabaptist.” Murray says “Peace is at the heart of the gospel. As followers of Jesus in a divided and violent world, we are committed to finding nonviolent alternatives and to learning how to make peace between individuals, within and among churches, in society, and between nations.”[1]

From the earliest beginnings of the Church of the Brethren there has been a commitment to nonviolence. While it is true that the exact way this has been addressed has shifted over the years, it is still a core element to the Brethren witness. Our denomination has as one catchphrase “Continuing the work of Jesus: Peacefully, Simply, Together.” We continue to sponsor the group On Earth Peace, which works to promote peacemaking around the world.

Within our own congregation, peace and peacemaking continues to have an important place for us. Our recent celebration of the International Day of Prayer for Peace on a Sunday in September highlights but one time that this continues to be an important part of our witness. I would be interested to hear how others in our congregation see this focus on peace and peacemaking playing out in the life of our congregation.

Next week, I’ll conclude my overview of “The Naked Anabaptist.”

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 181.

"The Naked Anabaptist" Core Conviction #6

2011-10-05T15:43:00.004-04:00

We have come to the penultimate core conviction of Anabaptism that Murray discusses in his book. He writes “Spirituality and economics are interconnected. In an individualistic and consumerist culture and in a world where economic injustice is rife, we are committed to finding ways of living simply, sharing generously, caring for creation, and working for justice.”[1]

It is clear that the early Christians were concerned with economics. Acts 2:43-46 articulates a clear understanding that these early Christians held everything in common. Throughout his letters, the apostle Paul talks about a collection for the church in Jerusalem, a collection that would be used to help those who were in need. Jesus’ own ministry offers examples of the overturning of the economic order.

Within the tradition of the Church of the Brethren, there have been many different responses to connecting economics with spirituality. One of the more prevelant ways this has played out over the past century or so has been the emergence of the idea of simple living. One of the catchphrases of this idea is “Live simply, that others may simply live.”

We need to remember that, in turning our lives over to Jesus Christ, we cannot separate our finances from our theology. Sharing our resources together as a congregation is certainly one important way that our spirituality and finances come together. But we cannot simply stop there. We need to work to overturn those places where economic injustice limits the lives of other people.

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 180.

Scheduling Note

2011-10-05T15:43:00.001-04:00

As you may have noticed, I did not have a new post last week. This was due to a very busy week here at the church. I will be putting up a new post here later today. Next week, I will be on vacation, and so I will not have a post next week. Regular weekly postings will resume the next week.

“The Naked Anabaptist” Core Conviction #5

2011-09-22T15:17:00.000-04:00

Today’s look at The Naked Anabaptist brings us to the fifth of seven core convictions. Murray’s fifth core conviction is worded thusly: “Churches are called to be committed communities of discipleship and mission, places of friendship, mutual accountability, and multivoiced worship. As we eat together, sharing bread and wine, we sustain hope as we seek God’s kingdom together. We are committed to nurturing and developing such churches, in which young and old are valued, leadership is consultative, roles are related to gifts rather than gender, and baptism is for believers.”[1] Once again, there is a lot going on in this core conviction, so I want to take a little time to look at some different parts of it more closely.

An integral part of this conviction is that church is a community where believers gather to disciple one another and to work together in mission. From the Anabaptist perspective, church is not something that is limited to an hour or so of worship once a week. Church is community, living together, working together, and serving God together. It requires us to truly know each other and to know God.

Another important part of this statement comes at the very end when Murray states “baptism is for believers.” This has been a central aspect of Anabaptism from the very beginning, and contributed to the very name of the movement. The earliest Anabaptists became convinced that infant baptism was not a valid form of baptism, and so came to the conclusion that they needed to be baptized as adults. Their opponents latched onto this, and claimed that they were being re-baptized, which is the original meaning of the word anabaptism. While our denomination has softened its view on infant baptism for those coming into the denomination from the outside, this understanding that baptism is for believers only still plays an important role in our denomination life.[2]

Murray describes the church as a place where gifts determine the roles that persons play in the church, and not gender. While our local congregation does very well with this, our denomination as a whole continues to struggle with this issue. Events earlier this year at Annual Conference highlight our continued difficulties with the role of women in leadership within the denomination. Ideally, the church should hand out roles based upon gifts and abilities regardless of gender. Realistically, we still have a ways to go with this.

As I look around our congregation in the brief time that I have been here, it is clear that we strive to live up to much that is contained in this core conviction. We are, in a very profound way, a community that supports each other in difficult times and in the good times. We value each member of the congregation, and seek to find ways to get everyone involved in roles that match up with their gifts, abilities, and callings. As we continue to journey together, may we continue to always seek to build each other up, that we may live into the life God calls us to lead.

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 180.

[2] Up to the mid-twentieth century, the CoB required persons joining the church who had been baptized as infants to be baptized anew.

"The Naked Anabaptist" Core Conviction #4

2011-09-15T15:39:00.001-04:00

Today, I am returning to my discussion of Stuart Murray’s book The Naked Anabaptist. For today’s post, I will be focusing on Murray’s fourth core conviction of Anabaptism. He states “The frequent association of the church with status, wealth, and force is inappropriate for followers of Jesus and damages our witness. We are committee to vulnerability and to exploring ways of being good news to the poor, powerless, and persecuted, aware that such discipleship may attract opposition, resulting in suffering and sometimes ultimately martyrdom.”[1]

In Luke 4:14-30, Jesus gives a summary of his call, reaching back to the words of the prophet Isaiah. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” (Luke 4:18-19 NRSV). With this as the basis for his ministry, Jesus spends a large chunk of his ministry by tending to the needs of the poor, the hungry, the homeless.

Throughout the era of Christendom, which was the focus of my last post, the church found itself in positions of great power. And in so doing, it often failed to live up to the call of Jesus. This core conviction of Anabaptism recalls these words of Jesus, and reinforces their centrality to the mission of the church. Instead of focusing on power and status, our calling as the church is to serve the poor, the powerless, and the persecuted.

The Church of the Brethren has, at times, lived into this calling. Brethren Volunteer Service has many opportunities to serve the least among us.

Our congregation has opportunities for us to live into this calling of Jesus. Later today, members of our congregation will be participating in a ministry in Roanoke geared towards helping some of the least among us.

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 179.

Weekly update

2011-09-08T15:53:00.003-04:00

I will be resuming the series on The Naked Anabaptist next week. In place of that, I am offering some links to stories reflecting on the tenth anniversary of September 11.

The Huffington Post has a number of articles on this subject on its religion page, including stories from an interfaith perspective, and several from 9/11 chaplains.

Sojourners also has posted a number of articles.

This is not intended as an all-inclusive list, but simply an attempt to give some links to a religious perspective on the tenth anniversary.

"The Naked Anabaptist" Core Conviction #3

2011-09-01T13:52:00.000-04:00

As we continue on our journey through The Naked Anabaptist, we come to the third core conviction that Murray discusses. The discussion of this core conviction will likely take a bit longer than the ones that have preceded it, as it is a bit more complex. The first two core convictions both revolved, in some way, around the centrality of Jesus for Anabaptist thinking. The third core conviction looks at the issues surrounding the idea of Christendom, marking a shift towards a different part of the Anabaptist understanding of Christianity.

Murray states the third core conviction in this manner: “Western culture is slowly emerging from the Christendom era when church and state jointly presided over a society in which almost all were assumed to be Christian. Whatever its positive contributions on values and institutions, Christendom seriously distorted the gospel, marginalized Jesus, and has left the churches ill-equipped for mission in a post-Christendom culture. As we reflect on this, we are committed to learning from the experience and perspectives of movements such as Anabaptism that rejected standard Christendom assumptions and pursued alternative ways of thinking and behaving.”[1]

There is clearly a lot going on in this statement, so I’d like to break it down a bit to explain it a little more. Christendom is a period of Christianity that generally is said to have begun with the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine in 312 CE. Up to this point in the history of Christianity, the movement existed almost entirely on the margins of the Roman Empire. However, this made a dramatic shift during the reign of Constantine, when Christianity became the official state religion of the empire. At that point, the entirety of the population was assumed to be Christian, unless there was a specific reason otherwise (for example, Jews were not automatically considered Christians). Rather than a persecuted minority, the church came to play a central role in the nation-state. A blend of church and state began, and, in time, it often became difficult to distinguish between the two.

From the earliest part of the Radical Reformation, Anabaptists found this mixture of church and state to be troubling. The insistence on believer’s baptism was, at least in part, a rejection of the ideas of Christendom. Within Christendom, all citizens were understood to be Christians, whilst Anabaptists insisted that only those who choose to be Christians, and are baptized as believers, are truly Christian.

As a group that descends from the early Anabaptists, the Church of the Brethren has had its own critiques of Christendom. There are numerous stories of Brethren who have opposed the idea that church and state are one and the same, as Christendom often teaches. The earliest Brethren knew that their decision to be baptized in the Schwarzenau River would be an act that rejected not only the role of the institutional church, but also that of the government.

I have written on the subject of the role of the government in relation to the church here, which I would urge everyone to read.

I’ll stop here this week, as this is already getting to be quite long. I may continue this discussion next week, as there is certainly more that could be said on this subject.

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 178.

"The Naked Anabaptist" Core Conviction #2

2011-08-25T15:23:00.000-04:00

Last week, I looked at the first of seven core convictions of Anabaptism that Stuart Murray discusses in his book The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith. This week, I will be continuing my look at these core convictions.

Murray describes the second core conviction of Anabaptism as “Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centered approach to the Bible and to the community of faith as the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implication for discipleship.”[1] There are two essential elements in this core conviction. First, as we are reading and interpreting the Bible, the story of Jesus is the central, one might even say most important, part of the Bible. The rest of the texts must be read in light of the revelation of the Gospels. Second, the reading and interpretation of the text takes place in the midst of the community of faith. Rather than relying on our own interpretation, as Anabaptists we seek to test our interpretations in the context of our community of faith.

When we look back at the start of the Church of the Brethren in Schwarzenau, Germany, the dual forces of this core conviction become plain. The early Brethren gathered as a community to interpret the Bible, and were deeply moved by the Gospels. It is clear that the stories of Jesus in the Gospels informed the interpretation of the rest of the scriptures in that early group of Brethren.

In our own congregation, we live out this core conviction in several ways. Both of our Sunday School classes look to spend time interpreting the Bible together, in community. The group that meets together for Bible studies on Tuesday mornings embodies this desire to interpret the Bible as a community of faith as well. Time and again, when we turn to the Bible, as a group, and individually, we use the stories of the Gospels to help us interpret other, less familiar texts.

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 178.

"The Naked Anabaptist" Core Conviction #1

2011-08-18T13:56:00.002-04:00

Last week, I began a series looking at the book The Naked Anabaptist, by Stuart Murray. This week I’ll be continuing that series by looking at the first of the seven core convictions of Anabaptism that Murray discusses in his book.

The first core conviction that Murray gives is “Jesus is our teacher friend, redeemer, and Lord. He is the source of our life, the central reference point for our faith and lifestyle, for our understanding of church and our engagement with society. We are committed to following Jesus as well as worshipping him.”[1] As this statement indicates, the Anabaptist movement holds Jesus in a high regard. The teachings of Jesus are extremely important to those of us in the Anabaptist movement. That is not to say that Jesus is not important to other Christians, but that for Anabaptists, his teachings play a critical role in our understanding of his life, death, and resurrection. For some Christians, the teachings of Jesus are not as important as his death and resurrection.

And within our own Church of the Brethren tradition, the Sermon on the Mount, has played a critical role within our understanding of what it means to be a Christian church. Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:43-48 to love our enemies has been one of the verses that informed the formation of our peace witness. We seek to not only be believers of Jesus, but also to follow what he said.

As an Anabaptist congregation, we devote a considerable amount of our time to trying to understand the teachings of Jesus. Since I’ve been here, one of our Sunday School classes has been focusing on the Sermon on the Mount, seeking to understand how Jesus’ teachings contained therein might be applied to our lives now. We continue to seek ways of being Christian that involves not only belief in Jesus, but following his teachings as well.

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 177.

"The Naked Anabaptist" Introductory Post

2011-08-11T12:56:00.001-04:00

At Annual Conference this July, I picked up a copy of the book “The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith” by Stuart Murray. I’d heard about it before, and I’ll admit what intrigued me the most was the title. I wondered what does he mean by “The Naked Anabaptist?” Certainly it would be something other than simply an Anabaptist going around without any clothes on, wouldn’t it?

Murray describes an encounter that led to the title of his book. A friend was asked at one point “What does Anabaptism look like without the Mennonite, Hutterite, or Amish culture in which it is usually clothed in North America?”[1] Murray’s friend responded by saying “Ah, you mean ‘the naked Anabaptist,’ do you?...Anabaptism stripped to down to the bare essentials.”[2] The book, then, seeks to explore the basic beliefs that are inherent in the majority of Anabaptist understandings of Christianity.

Overall, this book does a good job of introducing the basic beliefs that undergird the majority of Anabaptist traditions today. Murray is a part of a group called “The Anabaptist Network,” a group of people in the UK who are interested in Anabaptism in their own context. They have come up with “7 Core Convictions”, the discussion of which forms a good portion of Murray’s book.[3] In future weeks, I hope to look at each of these convictions, and discuss how I see them fitting into our congregation here at Daleville.

As I close this week, I would like to give a couple of links to sites that might be of interest as I begin this time of looking at Murray’s book:

Amazon link for the book “The Naked Anabaptist”

The Anabaptist Network – UK group exploring Anabaptist ideas in UK

7 Core Convictions – Link to 7 Core Convictions Murray explores in his book.

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 15.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 44-46.

"Cotton Patch Gospel"

2011-08-04T15:40:00.001-04:00

Last night, Tasha and I watched a video of the play “Cotton Patch Gospel.” It’s a very interesting take on the Gospel story, which updates the story of Jesus by placing it in the context of the South. At times funny, and at times very thought provoking, it is a wonderful testament to the lasting message of the Gospel.

Throughout this version of Jesus’ life, we are shown what it might have been like for Jesus to have been born in a time very different from his own. One scene has a televangelist describing Jesus’ healing coming from demonic influences, which he knows for sure because “Jesus didn’t charge anything for it.” The retelling of the parable of the Good Samaritan features the head of a large church organization and a Gospel quartet who pass by, with the role of the Samaritan being taken by a black truck driver. (The story is set during the time segregation was still in place).

This retelling of the Gospel story forces us to think about how Jesus’ ministry might have played out in the culture of the American South during the middle of the 20^th Century. It also invites us to think about how it might play out now. How would we receive Jesus if he came into our congregation? Who might the Samaritan be now? The story of Jesus is not limited to the historical period some 2000 years ago. It is still alive and working with in our midst even now. I’d invite you to ponder how we might retell the story of Jesus in our cultural context today, much as it was re-imagined in the stories of the musical “Cotton Patch Gospel.”

New start for my blog

2011-07-29T11:42:00.000-04:00

I've had this blog for a number of years, and have not been updating it very often. As part of my work as the pastor of the Daleville Church of the Brethren, I will be posting updates from time to time. I've left a couple of my older posts on here, as examples of what I hope this blog will be about. I'd be happy to talk with anyone about any of the posts on this blog. My intention is that there will be a new blog post at least once a week.

Must Christians obey everything the government says?

2007-07-16T14:39:00.000-04:00

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. -Romans 13:1 NRSV

For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and praise those who do right. -1 Peter 2:13-14 NRSV

I have been pondering over these verses for the last couple of days. When I was preparing my children's message for Sunday, I was looking up some information on Ted Studebaker, and came across a letter which had been written to Ted shortly before his death. The letter argued that these two passages show that we must trust and obey our government. This specific letter indicates "President Nixon is a fine man...one who honors and trusts in God, one who is trying to do what is best for all Americans." This logic troubles me, both now and for some time.

Under this understanding, a good Christian is a Christian who is loyal and completely obedient to whatever government is in place in her or his country of origin. This has very troubling implications, especially in times of war. Indeed, from a theological perspective, then, ultimate authority on earth lies not in the hands of God, but in the hands of the rulers of the nations. One implication that has been running through my head of late comes from Nazi Germany. If this understanding is correct, then all Christians in Nazi Germany should have followed and supported the extermination of the Jews in Europe. Indeed, they should be praised for their zealous prosecution of these governmental policies. Yet, as a church, few would think to praise and support German Christians for supporting these policies. From many perspectives, perhaps the most notable Christian in Germany at that time was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a member of the Confessing Church movement which opposed the Nazi government and who actively sought to bring it to an end.

If we were to continue on the path that this interpretation of these texts proposes, we would be forced to indicate that any Christian who opposed governmental policies was opposing God. Yet, let us think of the many good Christian leaders who have worked for change in the way that the government works. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. spent much of his life fighting against the entrenched understandings of racial segregation both within the culture at large and within the governmental policies that existed. King's participation in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which was based on opposition to a law requiring blacks to give up their seats to whites, would be seen as opposing the will of God. Few would argue that this is indeed the case. Yet, followed to its logical conclusion, this common understanding of this text would seem to indicate such actions would be wrong.

As we look at our current situation, there are important implications for our lives today. If the government is correct, and the good Christian should obey the government, then all opposition to the Iraq war from a Christian perspective is null and void. However, this is not the case. As I have shown, this particular understanding of these texts is flawed. Instead of an interpretation that condones those who participated in the atrocities of the Nazis and condemns such persons as Bonhoeffer and King, we need to look for a different way of understanding these texts. I will give a brief synopsis of my own understanding of these texts. While this is my own synthesis of these texts, I am drawing on many different resources, not all of which are possible to track down at this point.

First of all, we need to understand a difference between being subject to an authority, and obeying an authority. We find many times in the Biblical tradition commands to obey the laws of God. Yet in this key text, it indicates that we are to be subject to the authorities. Subject does not necessarily indicate that these authorities are to be obeyed. Rather, for me, it indicates that when the authorities are not obeyed, we are to accept the consequences of our actions.

When we look at the text from 1 Peter 2, shortly before the verses given above comes this admonishment, "Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11 NRSV) We are called to live as aliens and exiles, not as the citizens of this world. Rather, we are to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God. This does mean that at times, indeed probably at most times, Christians will be in opposition to the culture and desires of this world. As such, it is indeed to be expected that there will be from time to time opposition to particular parts of our government and governments around the world.

VA Tech Tragedy

2007-04-16T21:51:00.000-04:00

As many people did today, I spent much of the day watching coverage of the tragedy at Virginia Tech today. This tragedy has saddened me. While I only know a few people who attend Tech, I have several good friends who do go there or graduated from there. My prayers go out to all who have been affected by this incident, those who have died, those who have been injured, their families, and friends.

As I have been looking at coverage online, I have been reading some of the comments on this story posted on slashdot. One thing that I noticed being repeated over and over is that if guns had not been banned on the campus of VA Tech, then this tragedy would have been lessened, if not entirely averted. However, there are a number of faulty assumptions with this statement. First, it assumes that there would have been someone with a gun in a position to try and stop the shooter. While certainly possible, it is not inevitable that someone with a gun, had they been allowed, would have been in a position to try to act. Secondly, it assumes that such a person, with a gun in the right place, would have necessarily been able to stop the shooter. Again, this is problematic because there are so many factors that would have to go into this situation. Is the gun loaded? Will the person have the ability to actually shoot another person? Such a person could have missed, and been shot by the shooter. In short, it is fallacious to argue that, had guns been allowed on campus, this incident would not have happened. Is it possible that, had guns been allowed on campus, that the shooter could have been stopped before he killed so many people? Certainly, it is possible. But it is not inevitable, nor perhaps even likely.

Some, in response to this, would like to expand the availability of guns for the students on the VA Tech campus. However, we need to consider, is this actually the best possible way to respond and prevent future incidents? Personally, I don't think this would be the best response. Instead of looking to provide a patch, we need to consider more deeply the causes of this and other similar incidents. The cure for violence is not more violence, or the potential for more violence. I do not ascribe to the statement that violence never solves anything, rather, often times violence has solved, on a short term basis, many crisis situations. For instance, Robert Heinlein points out in his book Starship Troopers, violence solved the differences between Rome and Carthage, with the utter destruction of Carthage. While this is the case, I am firmly of the mindset that violence, while it does solve some problems, and may be able to solve many problems, at least in the short term; violence should not be the response to violence. This will only lead to greater and greater violence.

So what, then, should the response be? In my view, the only successful response, in the long-term, to violence, is non-violent resistance. This conviction rises out of my commitment to Christianity, and the non-violent response it brings forward. Now, many may say that Christianity does not espouse a non-violent rhetoric, and will point to the many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. However, while it is true that there have been many times that Christianity has been used not only to under gird but to fully endorse the use of violence, in my reading of the New Testament it is clear that such a use is a complete misunderstanding of the message that Jesus brought and died for. Vernard Eller, in his book War and Peace From Genesis to Revelation: King Jesus Manual of Arms for the 'Armless argues "one hardly can reject the peace position without rejecting the gospel itself." Thus, rather than simply having a knee-jerk reaction to this incident, such as arming as many people as possible, we need to look deeply at the root causes of violence. These causes are rooted in our culture itself, and to change them will not be easy. Since the exact details of why this person went on such a rampage are not known currently, a comprehensive response cannot, at this time, be formulated.

Can violence, ultimately, be defeated? Yes, I believe so. The gospel message undercuts and invalidates the use of violence, offering a different way of living that allows us to live together in community without violence. I leave with this from Jesus: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you." (John 14:27a NRSV).

General Board Trip

2006-10-23T20:39:00.000-04:00

This weekend, I got to go to the board meeting of the Church of the Brethren General Board. This was an interesting experience, as it gave me a glimpse into the workings at the denominational level. While the General Board is not the only denominational organization within the CoB, it is one of the if not the largest organizations. It is responsible for most of the ministry that is conducted on a denominational level.

One of the things that I appreciated about the trip was the opportunity to meet with people who are higher up in the denomination. Our group got to meet with the district executives that were at the board meeting. Our meeting with the district executives gave me some good insight into the placement process within the CoB, which I think will likely be very helpful after I graduate from Bethany.

I also got the chance to meet up with a couple of friends from Camp Bethel who are now in Elgin. One of them is doing a BVS placement as a workcamp coordinator at the General Board. The other two are originally from Elgin, who went down and worked at Camp Bethel. I ended up going to a local microbrewery for a couple of beers with one of these friends. We had a good time, and got to catch up a bit.

Overall, the trip was really fun. At times, I was bored during the meetings, but such occurrences were few and far between. I think that this was a very informative trip, and one that has the potential to be very helpful as I move forward in ministry within the CoB.

My Weekend

2006-10-17T19:30:00.000-04:00

This past weekend was pretty fun. I got to go down to Virginia to lead a high ropes group at Camp Bethel. Because of this, I also got to go down to the Bridgewater game on Saturday, which was a bit of a disappointment because we lost, but it was still fun. I got to have some really good BBQ chicken at the tailgate.
This Sunday was my birthday, which was pretty good. I got to play on the high ropes course for a bit, going over what we would be doing on Monday. I also got to get together with some old friends of my parents who gave me a pretty significant donation towards my trip to Kenya in January. So my birthday dinner was spent talking with them, which was pretty interesting.
The ropes group on Monday went pretty well, everybody at least tried and got up on the course a little bit, which is always an accomplishment. Nobody got hurt, either, which is also a really good thing.
Then I went up to see my sister and her husband yesterday evening. My sister was sick, so she spent most of the evening on the couch watching TV. Still, it was nice to get to see her and my brother-in-law.
The only bad part of the trip was today on the drive back. I got my first traffic ticket today for failure to stop at a stop sign, which I did do. It's just irritating because there was nobody coming, so I really didn't see the point of stopping. But, I guess I was due one eventually, I hadn't gotten one ever in the 9 or so years that I've been driving, and with the amount of driving I do, its surprising that I haven't gotten one before.

Ministry Formation

2006-10-11T23:40:00.000-04:00

For my ministry formation placement this year, I'm working for the Campus Ministries office at Earlham College. It's been really interesting so far, even though it was a struggle at first to find things to work on. But as things have gotten rolling, its been really fun.

I've been getting involved with several different student religious groups on campus. This has been interesting, giving me a chance to meet and interact with different students. One of the big things I've been working on is running a weekly Bible study. These activities have been both helpful and at times frustrating. Yet overall, my placement seems to be going well.

I'm also starting to work on planning a Thanksgiving service for next month. I asked my supervisor whether there was usually a Thanksgiving service, and the idea seemed completely foreign to her. So I get to plan and lead a Thanksgiving service next month. It's the first worship service that I've ever planned for an entire college campus. My biggest concern is whether or not anybody actually shows up for the service.

Christianity and homosexuality

2006-10-08T20:54:00.000-04:00

So I have this group on Facebook, Christians against a Federal Marriage Amendment. I started this group because every Facebook group on this subject that I found argued that all good Christians necessarily oppose homosexuality, or some variation of the same. I therefore decided to start a group for Christians who think homosexuality is not a sin, and that Christians should not support a marriage amendment to the Constitution.

I've received a couple of messages asking about my group. The first one wasn't too bad, it basically argues that Christians need to speak the truth in love, and for that author, the truth about homosexuality is that it is a sin. But the second message I got is the one that really bugged me. I just got it today, and the author of the second message suggests that I haven't read the Bible very closely, questioned whether I had done any research regarding this issue in Christianity, and then asked whether I had taken any courses on the Bible! Both of these authors seem to think that the Bible is very clear about homosexuality. Yet, as I read the text, it is not so clear.

The thing that bothered me the most about the second message was the apparent understanding that any reasonable Christian could have only one view of the issue of homosexuality, the view that homosexuality is a sin. This seems to me to be a very simplistic understanding of sexual ethics within the New Testament. The available literature on the subject of homosexuality in the Bible offers a diverse opinion, ranging from complete rejection of homosexuality to the opinion that the Biblical text does not comment on homosexuality within a loving, mutual relationship. I was also bothered by the implication that I have not studied the Bible, and that I need to take a course on the Bible.

This is not the only complex issue within both the church and the political arena within the United States that is simplified far too often, by both sides. For instance, I have been seeing a lot of political commercials on TV lately arguing that taxes should always be reduced. There is one political commercial that goes through a litany of times the candidate failed to vote for tax relief. Thus, the argument that I perceive from the Republican party is that any vote to keep taxes at their current level or to raise taxes will hurt the economy, and that any vote to lower taxes will help the economy. Yet, if taxes are continually lowered, the government will be forced to either cut services or borrow money, neither of which serve the needs of the constituents. There are times when tax cuts are appropriate, and there are times that tax increases are appropriate. Yet, the complexity of taxation does not come across in these ads. It seems to me that we, as a nation and as the church, need to regain the ability to discuss complex issues without resorting to the simplification and demonization of the opposing view.