I want to start by saying that I understand that a number of you have an extensive Christian education. By this I mean you have some background in Christian philosophy and theology. I, however, do not. I am mostly self-educated on these matters, bringing my experience and my studies to bear on the issues I’m about to discuss.

So, if this is something you have heard before or there is some technical term for what I am describing, then just bear with me.

I found an interesting trend in the way that some folks interpret scripture. It seems to me that there are two ways of evaluating scripture that I hear often and both approaches a troubling.

The framework generally goes like this:

1) This passage of scripture says “x,y,z”, I agree with it, therefore it is true.
Here’s an example:

” Genesis 9:6 states that a man who sheds anothers blood shall also have his blood shed. Therefore, the death penalty is ethical from a Christian standpoint.”

2) This passage of scripture says “x,y,z,”, I don’t agree with it, therefore, we must look at the context.
Here’s an example:

(someone retorts to the above)
“John 8’s account of the woman about to be stoned demonstrates that Jesus is against the death penalty”
(guy for the death penalty retorts)
“We must look at the context. The woman was an adulteress, not a murderer. Therefore, the death penalty is still ok.”

Do you see what I’m trying to get at here? In the first example, the interpreter jumps past the rest of scripture to make a claim that is totally out of the context of all of scripture, but then when challenged, he appeals to the context.

And yet, some things from scripture must stand as independent truths. They may be enriched by the context, but certainly the context doesn’t need to be a necessary component. “Blessed are the peacemakers” comes to mind as a possibility.

Anyone else run into similar struggles with biblical interpretation along these lines? Or is it just me?

I was surprised to see that there was little discussion about the Jeremiah Wright controversy on this blog; perhaps because it is being discussed in every other forum available.

At any rate, if nothing else, the whole charade has produced a number of interesting responses; I was particularly struck by the series that NPR did on black liberation theology. I think it was a thoughtful way to approach the Jeremiah Wright scandal: they asked the question “where is he coming from?”, and set out to find the answer. If you are interested, I have linked below a number of radio pieces on black liberation theology, particularly interesting is the interview with James Cone, a founding thinker in the black liberation theology movement.

Black Liberation Theology, in its Founder’s Words

The Roots of Black Liberation Theology***

Religious Scholars Discuss Liberation Theology

Understanding Rev. Jeremiah Wright

And here is a great video of a Catholic priest who was stopped on the street by a Fox News team to question him about why he was having Rev. Wright speak at his parish. This priest then goes on to basically own the Fox News reporter and give one of the better interviews I’ve ever seen on Fox News.

Fox News Owned by Catholic Priest

Edit: Here’s King’s Riverside speech, which is a shining example of prophetic liberation theology.

MLK’s Riverside Speech

And here’s Archbishop Romero’s Last Speech as well.

*** I finally figured out which program it was that had this issue: check out “The Roots of Black Liberation Theology” and listen long enough for the callers. A queer woman calls around the 22nd minute and questions these theologians on how they view inclusion in terms of sexual identity.

So, from time to time, a YAR will name drop or link to a blog that she reads.

I would like to propose that, for the mutual edification of everyone on the blog, and for my own curiousity, that we share - via comments on this post - some of the blogs we frequent.

If you have a few blogs that you think are high quality and cover issues that you think are important (or even news sites), then please share those blogs in the comments here.

I think if we all are able to know what others are reading, we will be able to better understand each other and understand what issues are important to YAR authors.

Thanks!

Many of you remember my post from a few months ago on what is currently happening in the Gaza strip in the fighting between Israel and Hamas.

The above image comes from last Thursday, when Israeli military killed over 20 people in one day during fighting in the Gaza strip. 14 of those deaths happened in Central Gaza, and five of those killed were under 16 years old. The image depicts an unnamed Palestinian boy, in what is probably the last moment in his life. He was hit by Israeli tank fire while standing amongst a Reuters TV crew - with vehicles clearly marked as a media crew - that lost a cameraman whose name was Fadel Shana.

This is a link to a video from Fadel Shana’s camera. It is of an Israeli tank in the distance firing a shell at the TV crew - again, a clearly marked vehicle. You will see, just before the video goes black, a secondary explosion in the upper part of the screen. This is the shell cartridge as it explodes, shooting thousands of lethal antipersonnel darts (”flechettes”) into the bodies of Fadel Shana and three Palestinian bystanders, two of them boys.

Here is a link to the NY Times coverage of the fighting that day. Note the comments of Israeli Army spokeswoman Leibovich:

Asked about the many civilian casualties, Maj. Avital Leibovich, an Israeli Army spokeswoman, said the military had struck an armed group. “It could be that civilians were nearby; it would not be the first time,” she said.

Major Leibovich said that if a cameraman had been killed, “we apologize for that.”

“It was not intentional,” she said, adding that journalists took a risk by operating in fighting zones.

Some may not like my reading into this, but I don’t really care. The assumptions behind the rhetoric ring true. If a cameraman dies as a result of a direct attack of a media crew - then the Israeli army is “sorry”. When civilians die, “it wouldn’t be the first time”. The Israeli army is not sorry when Palestinian boys riding their bikes in Central Gaza get killed by attacks on civilian/press targets that are in direct violation of international law.

Moreover, the killing of Fadel Shana was “not intentional” - though it would seem the video proves otherwise - yet, giving Leibovich the benefit of the doubt, what is she saying by implication? Fadel Shana’s killing was “not intentional”, but the deaths of those boys…that was intentional. Or, if I wanted to play nice about it, they simply aren’t important. They are like “refuse in the streets” (as Isaiah put it).

^1:2 Yahweh, how long will I cry, and you will not hear? I cry out to you “Violence!” and will you not save?

^1:4 Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth; for the wicked surround the righteous; therefore justice goes forth perverted. (Habakkuk, NJB)

Maybe we’ve stopped praying for Palestine. Maybe we never cared to start. Maybe it was too hard to ask God for a fix to this complex situation; and, hey, we don’t know the history well enough.

I hear lots of Christians decrying violence in Kenya - cuz, ya know, there are missionaries there. It’s a “save-able” country.
I haven’t heard much Christian response to the remarks made by Israeli deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai that if Hamas does not stop its rocket fire, then it will be in for a big shoah and Israel will defend itself at all costs.

What does shoah mean? Well, it can be translated as “big disaster”. But, for most folks who speak Hebrew, shoah generally means holocaust. It is almost exclusively used to describe the mass extermination of the Jews during World War II, and certainly it would not be used by a high ranking official in public for any other reason.

Did he mean a “big disaster”? No, I don’t think so, not any more than a homophobic bigot calls someone a “fag” and means “cigarette”. He meant holocaust.

Holocaust. Just roll that around in your brain a little. He was encouraging genocide. There’s no getting around that. Israeli government officials are toppling over themselves to marginalize Vilnai, but his comments are probably much more reflective of Israeli officials thoughts then they want everybody else to know.

For those unfamiliar with what is happening, let’s start from the (most recent) beginning. Because of rocket fire that had come from Gaza last year, on September 19, 2007, the Israeli security cabinet unanimously declared all of Gaza an “enemy entity”. As a result, the Israeli Occupation Forces were given the ability to do what was basically already in place: cut off the borders and all supplies coming in/going out of Gaza.

As reported by Gaza Community Mental Health Programme Director Eyad Al Sarraj on January 17th before the IOF cut off all electric power to Gaza:

[The] Israeli military establishment decided to stop power supply and fuel to Gaza. Since Thursday, food and humanitarian aid are not allowed in. Very soon life will come to a standstill. Water will not be pumped for a even drink. My step-son is on ventilator for asthma every night. What will happen to him when our generator is not running anymore? What will happen to hospitals, vaccines and blood banks? What will happen to patients on dialysis machines, and to babies in incubators?

Before it is dark and when there is no communication with the world, I want to tell you that the current Israeli policy of squeezing [Gaza] has the aim of pushing Egypt to open its borders with Gaza and bring the situation to [Egyptian occupation as it was] prior 1967. Israel will then close its borders with Gaza, separate the Strip from the West bank, and destroy the peace proposals of one state or two states. In short, Israel is fulfilling the Sharon unilateral withdrawal strategy. If Egypt fails to open its borders with Gaza, Israel will push us through Rafah towards the Sinai desert. Wait for the exodus.

Right now, what could ostensibly be called “refugees” are flooding the border with Egypt looking for any basic supplies they can get: food, water, etc. Meanwhile, Gaza lives in darkness. And with the constant bombardment of missile-strikes

Hamas, three days ago, sent rockets into the town of Sderot, killing one Israeli student. Since then, Israeli military forces have killed 30 Palestinians. Civilians for the most part.

Perhaps, as the sun sets in Gaza, the darkness can hide the suffering of shoah. Yet, with each rising day, there is a chance to bring injustice to light in the rays of the morning sun and to demand an end to oppression and a commitment to reconciliation.

If you feel under-educated on Israel-Palestine, feel free to visit the following sites. I make no attempt at “objectivity” or comprehensiveness. I have no love for suicide bombings or rocket launchers that Hamas funds; I neither have any sympathy for a multi-billion dollar military murdering children. Yet, I think the voices of the poor, homeless, and oppressed - usually the Palestinians in this case - go unheard in the public debate.

The Gun and the Olive Branch by David Hirst - a primer on the history of Palestine-Israel since the early 20th century until 9-11.

Electronic Intifada - Updated daily with commentary from Middle East analysts and activists.

B’tselem - Israeli Human Rights Organization

Al-Haq - Documents War Crimes in Palestine

Al-Mezan - Palestinian Human Rights Organization

Edit: More Resources on Israel-Palestine below

American Evangelicals Letter to President Bush on Israel- Palestine

Human Rights Watch: Civilians Bear Brunt of Attacks in Gaza/Israel

Amnesty International: Israel Must Allow Basic Necessities Into Gaza

Amnesty International: Israeli Army Destroys Palestinian Homes

Amnesty Int. Report: Enduring Occupation, June 2007

Yesh Din: Human Rights Workers Documenting Law Enforcement and Military Law in Palestine

Sabeel - Palestinian Liberation Theology

Update, Saturday March 1: Two IOF Soliders and 59 Palestinians (at least 29 of which were civilians, 5 children) were killed today in gun fire in the streets of Jabaliya in the Gaza Strip. Go to Israeli daily news site Ha’aretz to read more.

This is taking a new thread of thought from somasoul’s comments in the “Christarchy!” post Lora wrote (thanks Lora)
I find often on this blog a tendency to attack what is seen as the “Christian” status quo, readily identified as the following:

1) Rich

2) Sheltered

3) Spiteful of “sinners”

I will, of course, say “Amen”, “Amen” and “Amen”, provided the caveat that this refers mostly to North American suburban Christians - and, in the global scheme of Christendom, this is a small portion of the body of Christ.

I mention this because I sometimes wonder when we take on a prophetic voice to critique Christians for the above errors, if not this critique itself issues forth from a privileged and ethnocentric perspective.

For example, I am a Christian living in an urban zip code where about 1 in 3 people are living in poverty (I am that 1 in the 3 as well), and much of those in poverty are concentrated in the blocks surrounding my apartment. The city where I live was declared the second poorest city in the U.S. this past August by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Christians I meet are former hustlers and addicts who were redeemed and called by Christ to live out the gospel. The Christians I meet are not rich. A lot of Christians I meet are homeless alcoholics (and that’s a small percentage of the homeless population, mind you) who preach better sermons on grace than most reformed Christians. The Christians I meet are quick to point out their past sins and are awed at the gift that Christ has given them through his death and resurrection to reconcile them to God and forgive their sins.

Therefore, if you were to say to them that the Christian “status quo” that needs to be repented from is being “rich, sheltered, and spiteful of sinners”, they would probably be curious who you were refering to. Moreover, would this critique of the Christian “status quo” equally apply to the millions of believers in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia?

I think too often North American Christians think they are the only ones out there, except maybe those Catholics in Europe (but, aren’t they a cult that prays to Mary?)

Let us not forget that the “Christian status quo” is not any of the above mentioned characteristics; and so one should be careful when applying a generalization like that upon everyone.

The Christian message must always be spoken idiomatically; therefore, the only shared truth and hope we proclaim is Christ’s crucifixion (1 Corinthians 2:2); from there, we must recognize that what is in the heart of each believer and what is in their past is different, particularly across socioeconomic divides.

No Country for Old Men is released today in select theaters, which leaves me wanting to live in a more important city.Nonetheless, I have only to wait two more weeks before the nationwide release.

Reviews are already rolling out and I highly suggest to all of you that you see the film if you are able. I have been anticipating this one for quite some time. Los Angeles Times movie reviewer Kenneth Turan describes the moral underpinnings of the film:

The story of stolen drug money and the horrific carnage it precipitates, “No Country for Old Men” doesn’t celebrate or smile at violence, it despairs of it, despairs of its randomness, pervasiveness, its inescapable nature, of the way it eats at the soul of society and the individuals in it.

No one should go into “No Country for Old Men” underestimating the unnerving intensity of its moments of on-screen violence, its parade of corpses and geysers of spurting blood. But as the story unfolds with the awful inevitability of a modern myth, it’s clear that the Coen brothers and McCarthy are not interested in violence for its own sake but for what it says about the world we happen to live in. “I got it under control,” a confident deputy says, and in moments he is dead. He didn’t have anywhere near the mastery he imagined, and in this truly despairing vision, neither does anyone else.

Commenting on the transience of life - particularly in the context of the war in Iraq, AIDS crises in Africa, and the genocide in Darfur - is an apt reflection on our current condition.
I think ‘No Country for Old Men’ will turn out to be a ghastly film filled with horrid violence. But that’s it’s exactly why it should be seen by Americans - who too often forget that war entails blowing someone’s head off, repeatedly. This is a call to renewal in our understanding of the depravity of violence, to understanding exactly what violence means: without romantic, cathartic, or exciting character.

Watch the Trailer here

I serve as a full-time volunteer with an agency that coordinates homeless services. I thought a reflection on poverty would be apt, particularly given that we don’t have a “poverty” category yet on this blog.
Nehemiah 5 (NIrV)

1 Some men and their wives cried out against their Jewish brothers and sisters. 2 Some of them were saying, “We and our sons and daughters have increased our numbers. Now there are many of us. We have to get some grain so we can eat and stay alive.”

3 Others were saying, “We’re being forced to sell our fields, vineyards and homes. We have to do it to buy grain. There isn’t enough food for everyone.”

4 Still others were saying, “We’ve had to borrow money. We needed it to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards. 5 We belong to the same family lines as the rest of our people. Our sons and daughters are as good as theirs. But we’ve had to sell them off as slaves. Some of our daughters have already been made slaves. But we can’t do anything about it. That’s because our fields and vineyards now belong to others.”

6 I heard them when they cried out. And I burned with anger when I heard what they were saying. 7 I thought it over for a while. Then I brought charges against the nobles and officials. I told them, “You are forcing your own people to pay too much interest!”

So I called together a large group of people to handle the matter. 8 I said, “Our Jewish brothers and sisters were sold to other nations. We’ve done everything we could to buy them back and bring them home. But look at what you are doing! You are actually selling your own people! Now we’ll have to buy them back too!”

The people kept quiet. They couldn’t think of anything to say.

9 So I continued, “What you are doing isn’t right. Shouldn’t you show respect for our God? Shouldn’t you live in a way that will keep our enemies from making fun of us?

10 “I’m lending the people money and grain. So are my relatives and my men. But you must stop charging too much interest!

11 “Give the people’s fields back to them. Give them back their vineyards, olive groves and houses. Do it right away. You have charged them too much. Give everything back to them. Give them back the one percent on the money, grain, fresh wine and olive oil you have charged them.”

12 “We’ll give it back,” they said. “And we won’t require anything more from them. We’ll do exactly as you say.”

Then I sent for the priests. I made the nobles and officials take an oath to do what they had promised. 13 I also shook out my pockets and emptied them. I said, “Some of you might decide not to keep the promise you have made. If that happens, may God shake you out of your house! May he empty you of everything you own! May you be left with nothing at all!”

The whole community said, “Amen.” They praised the Lord. And the leaders did what they had promised to do.

14 And that’s not all. I was appointed as governor of Judah in the 20th year that Artaxerxes was king of Persia. I remained in that position until his 32nd year. During those 12 years, I and my relatives didn’t eat the food that was provided for my table.

15 But there had been governors before me. They had put a heavy load on the people. They had taken a pound of silver from each of them. They had also taken food and wine from them. Their officials had acted like high and mighty rulers over them.

But I have great respect for God. So I didn’t act like that. 16 Instead, I spent all of my time working on this wall. All of my men were gathered there to work on it too. We didn’t receive any land for ourselves.

17 Many people ate at my table. They included 150 Jews and officials. They also included leaders who came to us from the nations that were around us. 18 Each day one ox, six of the best sheep and some birds were prepared for me. Every ten days plenty of wine of all kinds was brought in as well. In spite of all that, I never asked for the food that was provided for my table. That’s because the people were already paying too many taxes.

19 You are my God. Please remember me. Show me your favor. Keep in mind everything I’ve done for these people.

Three things strike me about this passage. The first is how similar this situation is to the situation of those experiencing poverty and homelessness in America. Often, we will look at those who achieved more than us - make more money than us - and say “oh, well, they must have had a family connection” or something of that nature. But when it comes to those who are poor we say “well, they just aren’t working hard enough”. Because we all know in our hearts how hard we work to make ends meet.

Yet, just like Nehemiah’s Jewish brothers and sisters, many people in America face rising costs of living and don’t see much of an increase in their pay. Therefore, many of them have to choose between paying for their home or paying for their food. When it comes down to it, we know which of those is going to get paid for. No matter how hard they work, they can’t make it by. Sometimes, this is the result of debt. Debt to hospitals, when trips were made for illness without insurance (because minimum wage jobs don’t provide it), student loan debt, mortgage, car loans, credit card debt, etc. And often these come with soaring interest rates. Our whole system of money is based on credit, trust, and interest. It is an evil system, it is a pagan system.
The second thing that strikes me is that Nehemiah didn’t try to just feed his brothers and sisters. He didn’t give money to charity. He went directly to those oppressing his people and said “STOP!”. He addressed those directly in power and advocated for a response. And they listened because what he said was truth.

The third thing that strikes me is just how good Nehemiah is. He wouldn’t fight the oppression of his brothers and sisters and then contribute to it by receiving the benefits of the government which taxed them unfairly. He simply did what was right in the eyes of God: just like Dorothy Day, just like Dietrich Bonhoffer, just like Martin Luther King, just like Michael Sattler and the early Anabaptists. Nehemiah refused land, food, and payment from the government he served.

Sometimes, when fighting poverty, we can get mired in a lot of theory and half-truths about the nature of the mission. It’s all about charity; or, we just need to “teach a man to fish” (nothing I hate more than that phrase). No. These answers are in the right direction, but they are incomplete. Martin Luther King once said “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar…it is recognizing that an edifice which creates beggars needs restructuring”. May we all have this compassion, God willing.

A friend of mine invited me to a Mennonite church with her to experience their message this past November of 2006. I looked into the history; I examined the theology. And it made sense to me. As a result, I had a Christian conversion.

And then I spent some time in the church, and found that faith can smolder even among Mennonites. Despite a great theological understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit, I rarely hear Mennonites talk about the Spirit in their lives. Though preaching pacifism, some Mennonite lives out passive-ism. And still others cling to an ethnic identity which, while certainly important to heritage, is also exclusionary for those folks who don’t share that history.

I found this blog and thought perhaps it could be a helpful spiritual outlet for me. And, indeed, it has been.

But even us folks I think warrant a bit of constructive criticism, which I do submit comes from within my limited worldview, so take it with a grain of salt. YAR ain’t perfect. I may love this space, but I don’t unflaggingly support it. In the upcoming year, I would suggest the following to be considered by us folks:
1) Polarizing arguments are, well, polarizing and not constructive.
Polarizing arguments tend to lead to polarizing debates between two really impassioned people writing comments at 1am while they finish a paper on Russian Mennonites and their relationship to borscht. Everybody else gets drowned out or tired by the back and forth and then we have a post on the same issue two weeks later with two new people contributing their vitriol to the debate. It’s really tiring. Try to be more inviting with your debates, and never assume that your word is the final word on the subject.

2) If you are arguing something pretty conservative or pretty radical, “check yourself before you wreck yourself”.
I’ve encountered folks on this blog espousing conservative ethics and theology without feeling the need to explain themselves because their argument should be self-evident. I’ve encountered folks using incredibly radical arguments that throw scripture out the window despite the fact that, in my estimation, the supremacy of the Bible is key in the development of Anabaptist thought. Feel free to argue that one till the cows come home (because it can be argued), but you are definitely in the fringe of Anabaptists at that point. If you want your argument to be compelling for the majority of folks who don’t agree with you, at least try to reconcile your argument with the Bible in some way.And for folks with a conservative argument: you can be very selective with scripture. Don’t cite a verse and then say “see - that’s the Word, and it’s true” because I guarantee you can be proved wrong by another book. That’s the beauty of the Bible.

3) Your theology sounds great: can you help me understand it even a little?
I’m just as guilty as the next on this one: spewing forth some kind lofty theology with big words learned in a Christology class at seminary X. Dense concepts don’t need dense arguments: they need simplified arguments. If you are able to explain a dense theology with simple arguments, you’ve proven you understand it way more than if you use dense arguments. Please try to keep this in mind.

4) In the next year, do we need 28 more posts on LGBTQ?
I think Skylark noted something significant when addressing our underdeveloped topics. Most of the comments I’ve written on this blog have been defending/elaborating LGBTQ inclusion. However, there’s a great blog doing the exact same thing, and probably a lot better than we could: Coming Out Strong. Maybe we should be encouraging the work they do by engaging the issues there rather than trying to own it here. I’m not suggesting a moratorium on posting on the topic, but let’s be conscious of the fact that we may be spending so much time on this simply because it’s controversial and not because we’re getting to any productive or life-giving point with the discussion.

5) Encourage sound dialgoue, not simply controversial flaming.
I can’t think of simple tactics for this beyond real intellectual vigor, respect for others contributing on the blog, and being open to new ideas.

Given that, I’m curious what you YAR’s out there think. Here’s your assignment:

1) Find an example in our archives of what you feel was a sound, enriching dialogue on YAR
2) Post a comment with the link to that dialogue/post.
3) In the comment, tell us why you think it was a good dialogue

I’m sure among our archives we could even find one or two somewhat constructive discussions on LGBTQ. I look forward to hearing from you all.

I am currently reading The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South by Philip Jenkins. It is a fascinating book and if you have a chance to read it, I would highly encourage it. You can also hear Philip Jenkins give a little bit of an overview of the book from his address at the Berkeley Theological Union.

I would like to share a few quotes for discussion. From the end of the the chapter “Power in the Book” which surveys contemporary African and Asian perspectives on the Bible and its striking conservatism in relation to Euro-American “scholarly” understanding of biblical interpretation, Jenkins writes:

By what standards, for instance, do churches decide whether particular biblical verses or passages carry special weight, or might be less authoritative than others? Except for the hardest of the hardcore fundamentalists, American Christians rarely believe that each and every verse of scripture carries the same degree of inspiration, and hence the same value. Instead, many assume an implicit hierarchy of texts, based on what is commonly viewed as the best scholarly opinion. So, for example, the assumption that St. Paul did not really write the Pastoral Epistles attributed to him - the letters to Timothy and Titus - means that these can be treated as less serious, less authoritative, than the apostle’s undoubted words in Romans or the Corinthian correspondence. To claim that “Paul didn’t really write this” consigns the Pastorals to a semi-apocryphal status. At one synod of the Church of England, a clerical presenter made the remarkable argument that since no scriptural texts prohibited the ordination of women, modern conservatives should not “set up artificial and inept lines that no one can defend”. Apparently, in such a view, the explicit prohibition on women’s leadership or teaching authority found in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 no longer ecen counts as part of the New Testament. Opinions can differ about the authority that such a passage should command, but for many believers, it literally has been read out of scripture. (Jenkins, 40)

Jenkins is not arguing towards a particular “right or wrong” interpretation of scripture; his book is a sociological survey of current understandings of the Bible in the Global South. Yet, nonetheless, he does make clear that both sides in the “North-South” debate (which, he admits, both sides have a debate within themselves) literally have a completely different understanding of scripture. A Kenyan Archbishop, speaking of the differences between the northern and southern Anglican Communion, states: “Our understanding of the Bible is different from them. We are two different churches”. Jenkins goes on to note:

The liberal view thus claims the right to assess the value of particular texts based on historical criticism. The African view effectively follows more contemporary theories of reading and interpretation, stressing the role of the communities that receive and use the texts in question. From this perspective, it makes little difference to argue that a given text is clearly not from the hand of its supposed author , if it is received as authoritative by the churches that read it. Nor, unsurprisingly, do Northern churches make much headway when they try to place the Pauline condemnations of homosexuality in a social or historical setting. If the text says it and the church believes it, that authority is decisive enough. The nature of the reading community is critical. In this sense, literalism has much in common with postmodern theories of reading.

Jenkins also observes that the African (and similarly Asian) views of the Bible and theology will, in less than 50 years, be the dominant understanding in Global Christendom.

I cannot help but notice the similarity between African understanding of the Bible and Anabaptist understanding. Reading and understanding the Bible in community is one of the core tenants of Anabaptist - or, at the very least, Mennonite/Brethren - thought. African Christians are coming across the Bible in a culture where it is fresh, where popular culture doesn’t have Western Christian motifs injected into it. It has immense power. Similarly, the Anabaptists were able to better access scripture as a result of the Reformation which made it fresh over/against Catholic dogma.

And yet, Anabaptists rarely in their history took the Bible as literally as the current African church. Anabaptists had, for the most part, had to shy away from giving much merit to Old Testament wars, battles, and assassinations, so that it could build up a theology of Christian pacifism. Jenkins goes on to note:

118890-In popular thought, many believes associate the Old Testament with those aspects of Christianity that they find uncongenial, including the stories of Creation and the Fall, the vision of God as angry judge rather than loving parent, the justification of war and ethnic cleansing, and the pervasive legalism. (I am of course presenting popular stereotypes here, rather than my own view of the text.) These tendencies are most acutely obvious in a ritualistic, clerical, and legally oriented book like Leviticus. The Old Testament sets in sharper contrast the radically new, antihierarchical, and supposedly antilegalistic message of Jesus… It is almost as if Western Bibles today should be printed with a consumer’s warning at the beginning of the Old Testament declaring “This part should not be taken seriously”

Conversely, South African theologian Madipoane Masenya boldly asserts that “[i]f present day Africans still find it difficult to be at home with the Old Testament, they might need to watch out to see if they have not lost their Africanness in one way or the other”. Andrew Walls comments “You do not have to interpret Old Testament Christianity to Africans; they live in an Old Testament world”.

I offer some questions to think about and respond to:

1) While Western Christians (particularly Anabaptists and American liberal Christians) have, for the most part, written much of the Old Testament out of their theology, is this a responsible interpretation of scripture?

2) Does it matter if it’s a responsible interpretation?

3) Is writing the OT out of our theology a necessity in a Western society, just as it is crucial to have the OT in an African society?

This is a question I struggle with. Eric was leveled with the charge of iconoclasm for questioning the authority of Paul on the issue of sexuality. So I ask: Where does Paul’s authority lie? Does he fill in where Jesus didn’t explain things? Does he add to Jesus things that maybe weren’t meant to be added? Do either questions matter? Does he have final authority on sin and Christian practice? If not final authority, then where is his place in the “overall trajectory of scripture”?

Let’s venture out here a little bit. If you are arguing in the tradition of Paul as authoritative, don’t assume that this is self-evident. Prove it. If you are arguing that Paul’s authority is questionable, same applies: prove it.

While at the conference in San Jose, I encountered a great deal of conversation about “liberal” and “conservative” Christians, discussion which treated these as polar opposites and if you fall behind one particular view that is “liberal” than whoops! everything you think is liberal. I went to a workshop entitled “Sticks and Stones: A conversation about our conversations” presented by Dale Schrag who took a cue from Gregory Boyd on the polarizing debate happening within congregations throughout America and the devastating effects of the “Moral Majority” and the “Religious Right”. The politicizing of the church - something which is evident in MCUSA too, with a lot of focus on political issues - has ripped it apart, to the point where political allegiances are dictating what church you go to and what gospel you hear (or, should I say, choose to hear).

Does anyone else find the terms “liberal” and “conservative” problematic as they are used in a Christian context? I smell CNN and Fox News all over that distinction.
A few rhetorical questions:
Are you a “liberal” Christian just because you strategize ways to assist the poor? Are you “conservative if you don’t? Are you “conservative” because you place such an emphasis on scripture? Are you “liberal” because you don’t?

I had a lot of great discussions with Katie (and other YAR’s) this week at San Jose. Katie asked that I write a post about how I, as someone who did not grow up in the church, understand what the church teaches about queer sexuality.

First of all, I will say that, generally, Christian thought about same-sex sexuality appears backwards to me. It seems to neglect our Lord’s commandment to love and instead go around being Satan (which, I learned, is translated as “prosecutor”). And the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” thing isn’t the commandment - love is unconditional, and what you are saying when you say “love the sinner, hate the sin” is “I love you but…”, which is conditional. There are serious pitfalls in this thinking (and, I will admit, even in my own on the subject).

Another problem I find in the teaching of sexuality is what I call Floodgate theory
but which can be identified as the “slippery slope fallacy”. What is Floodgate Theory? Floodgate Theory is the idea that if we allow this one particular demographic or practice, this one particular idea, this one particular interpretation to become accepted, then what will we accept next? If we accept queer sexuality, then what about bestiality, adultery, pedophilia, or incest? The fear is that if we let this tradition go, all other traditions will fall apart too and then the whole church will be lost and Jesus will come and judge us all to be condemned to hell.

I won’t address the fear that underlies the theory, but I will address the theory. First of all, I don’t like the theory as it is used in argument/debate. It doesn’t address the particular question at hand, only future consequences that are not directly related to the question - “is it right to accept people with a homosexual orientation?” is a much different question than “what happens if we accept them?” Second, what if I (someone who does not think condemning queer folks is treating them decently) used the logic against those who are trying to condemn: “well, what happens if we condemn queer folks? Do we start condemning people of color? Do we start condemning non-Mennonites? Non-Catholics? Gentiles? Jews?”

The problem with it is this: it could be exactly right. Once you let one idea become accepted, it allows many other ideas to be accepted that follow along its logic. And once you condemn one particular idea or demographic, it lets others be condemned also.

Given that, I wonder how many of our Anabaptist radical ancestors heard the same theory. “No more infant baptism?!? That’s nonsense! What next, the pope is not divine? The Eucharist isn’t scriptural?” Yep, exactly.

Our Anabaptist forebearers had to challenge church tradition, based on doctrine which was based on interpretation which was, in turn, based on scripture. Now some of us YAR’s are trying to challenge the same kind of doctrine, except that this doctrine doesn’t have to go through hoops to get to scripture: it’s right there in Paul (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6). Though, I would argue against Paul; I don’t trust him on this issue. And again, floodgate theory can apply there: “What, you don’t think Paul is right? What next, we throw out all the epistles? Maybe the Gospel of Luke too?” Maybe.

I’d like to see what happens if the church did accept queer sexuality. Perhaps the floodgates would open. But is it our job (humans, that is) to hold on to history and determine what is godly or ungodly, or is it God’s job?

I was really excited to meet some of the YAR authors/lurkers at the San Jose conference this week, to hear of the kind of things you are doing inside and outside the Church, and to hear the insights you had about the future of the church.

On Wed, July 4th, several YAR authors and sympathizers had dinner and discussed issues that they felt were pressing in the church. Here are my notes from the meeting.

YAR meeting began by introducing each other and asking everyone to finish this sentence “I am radical because…”. Here are the responses:

“I am radical because I believe the church has to constantly challenge the status quo and push our comfort zone rather than make a comfort zone for us”

“I am radicals because I believe the Gospel is countercultural”

“I am radical because being decent to people is a radical thing these days”

“I am radical because I believe Christianity can be queer in a countercultural way that can change the world”

“I am radical because I am a black vegan anarchist that skateboards and watches The Young & The Restless but is committed to the church”

“I am not a radical, the church is just crazy.”

“I am not a radical, I just think a lot of issues in the church are overthought and could be a lot simpler”

“I am radical because I think of the world (the church) in terms of institutions - both just and unjust”

This was followed by a discussion of my post about church and business

One YAR present disagreed and believed that the church is open to criticism and that leadership are very willing to hear things which challenge the church authority. Another YAR agreed that “getting too off track” with interpretation or understanding of the gospel will get you in trouble with your congregation. Another said that in relation to her service with MVS, criticism was open and encouraged - and it was necessary for her personhood.

There was a lengthy discussion about the danger of an agency that was meant to serve the church ends up becoming a business - the example used was Mennonite Mutual Aid and its investing in business involved with the Israeli Occupation of Palestine.

This discussion dovetailed into a discussion of the institution of the church and why the church sometimes sacrifices prophetic vision in favor of tradition so that it can survive. Does the church need to survive or does it need to be prophetic? Is a shrinking church really a bad thing? If the church only wants to survive and doesn’t want to shake things up or really be “different”, then shouldn’t we just have one, big, universal church? Isn’t being Mennonite supposed to be a “niche”?

It was said that the church, because it has become a nationwide institution, has had the ability to call someone into account who they have never met. Can you call someone into account for something that they had no say about, let alone that someone they never met did have say about? It was said that there are people in the church who have tried to overpower others, holding onto something (tradition, doctrine,etc) so tightly they are choking it (the church) to death.

We then had a discussion, off the topic of the church and its goal of survival, of the schismatic line. Where is the line? At one time it was over baptism - for some YAR’s, the interests of LGBTQ folks is more important than infant baptism. If we aren’t interested in splitting over tough issues and towing the same line, why don’t we join the Catholic Church again?

Feel free to comment on some of the question that were brought up in this meeting. We did do more questioning than answering, which (I feel) was more constructive than answering.

I haven’t taken much time on this blog to talk about myself. I should say that I am an outsider in this church - my last name isn’t Yoder, Miller, Freisen, or Moshier.

I have only been a Christian for 9 months; the Mennonite congregation I attend (a beautiful place that I hope my new-found YAR friends can come see some day) was evangelical merely by their presence - they were spiritually formative by aligning speech and action and desire and vision. I would not want to be any place else.

I am writing from the convention in San Jose; I have been here since yesterday and will be leaving tomorrow (short time, I know, but I’m a busy guy).

I am coming to learn why it is frustrating to penetrate the Mennonite world: there are a lot of people who make money off of being Mennonite. Now, I’m not saying that they are money-grubbing, laughing in the corner like Wario or something with a treasure chest that they stole from some Indiana congregation. What I mean is that it seems (at least to me) that “modern” Mennonites have re-integrated this classic idea of “community” to fit within a secular capitalist context. So we got executive leadership in the conference, paid pastors, we got professors at Mennonite universities, we got MMA’ers making a paycheck.

I think this probably came up out of a desire to stay connected to the Church and a sincere concern for vocation within the Mennonite community. But just because you’re a banking consultant for a Mennonite institution working with a Mennonite constituency, does that REALLY set you apart from any other banking consultant? Just because you’re a Mennonite pastor preaching to a Mennonite choir, does that really mean you’re better than any other pastor, if you still practice the exclusion of those who don’t fit in your worldview?

So rather than having the Mennonite community where one guy is the blacksmith and the other guy is the cobbler and another guy a carpenter - we got professors, banking consultants, pastors, etc. And when Church and livelihood become married, the probability of being more conservative in your doctrine and thinking makes sense: you don’t want to jeopardize your job, your pastor salary or health insurance, and you certainly don’t want to be alienated from this community that has helped you find schools, find homes, find jobs.

Eric and I talked last night about “tradition”, and how that can often trump scripture and theology (including Anabaptist theology). Maybe this is part of the reason that tradition has such a focus: people who depend upon the church for their livelihood want to tread lightly, and many of those very same people hold positions of power.

If I left the church tomorrow (or was kicked out), I’d really not have much to lose. I could go to the United Church of Christ, the Quakers. My convictions are the same. It sounds like, for others, there would be a lot to lose.

Then again, I get the feeling (from some) that just because I didn’t grow up Mennonite, then I don’t know what it means to be Mennonite.

Hey gang,

This is of little importance to the larger dialogues we are having, but it is something of importance to me.

I am currently investigating schools of theology/semiaries. I currently hold an undergraduate humanities degree and want to explore possibilities for Th.D’s or Ph.D’s in theological studies (don’t know the difference there… different kind of job possibilities available?). I have outstanding grades and don’t think getting accepted will be the problem, I just don’t know where to look!

At any rate, I’ve found that the Anabaptist graduate programs, while offering much to the church and doing great work for equipping pastors, don’t seem to do as much in cultivating academic theological scholars.

I’m turning to my Anabaptist friends for help. If you are on the same journey as me or have already begun your journey and have any helpful insights about good Th.D/Ph.D theology schools out there, let me know. The best program I’ve investigated so far seems to be Duke University…. those Methodists/Wesleyan schools seem to have their act together…

Matthew 22:15-22 (NIV)

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

21″Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

John Howard Yoder has a great essay analyzing the above scripture along with Romans 13.

As such, I won’t unpack the above scripture too much.

I will however, ask you to reflect on the following questions:
When during my day do I submit to what “the world” (i.e., the secular, that to which God doesn’t call me) demands of me, and when do I submit to what God wants of me?
When during the day do I praise and worship God, and when do I praise and worship earthly powers?
When do I follow the herd of my fellow humyns and the status quo, and when do I let Christ be my sheperd?
When do I face down the unjust in “the world”, and when do I silently comply?
Do I pray for guidance in my decisions enough?

Prayer:
Heavenly Lord, show me the path to You, and I will follow it. Give me the strength to do what You need of me, and not to place my treasures in this world, where moth and rust corrupt. Yet reveal to me the beauty in Your Creation while keeping my eye toward You and your love, justice, and mercy.
*follow with the Lord’s Prayer*
Amen.

I should say, in case it hasn’t been noted, I try to make my reflections pretty general, but when I say things like “unjust” and “the world”, I don’t mean it like say, Jerry Falwell meant it. Actually, quite the opposite.

Can I tag someone to do the next Bible verse/ reflection? I think having these up daily/semi-daily is really good, but I wouldn’t want to be the only one doing them. Respond if you feel like taking it up for a day!

Peace be with you.

Taken from the online edition of The Mennonite

Lancaster Congregation to Ordain a Woman on June 24

LANCASTER, Pa.—More than 60 people from nine congregations gathered at the James Street Mennonite Church on May 16 to discuss how they might respond to a recent decision by Lancaster Mennonite Conference to not allow ordination for women (see Recommendation to Ordain Women Fails on page 19.)

“Very low on the list of options was to leave LMC,” said Linford King, overseer-bishop for the Lancaster City District, “and join another conference or start a new conference. There was a strong move to stay connected to LMC and go ahead with ordinations. The Lancaster district of LMC has formed its own ‘credentialing committee’ to interview candidates. The major impetus to move in this direction is the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, our full participation as members with Mennonite Church USA, and the recent Executive Board Affirmation for the Gifts of Women. The group did not engage in the ‘administrative arrangement’ with another conference. There was also some talk of ‘taking a leave of absence’ from LMC and entering a ‘safe house’ free of conference policies and participation.”

James Street Mennonite church is planning for a service of ordination on June 24 for Elizabeth Nissley.—Posted at 10:30 a.m. on May 22 by Anna Groff

I have put together the following reflection and prayer on the beauty of diversity in our world (please don’t cringe, I know the term “diversity” gets misused often as “let’s point out all the different stereotypes of different ethnic groups!”). The following passage from Mark reminds us that there isn’t just one way (one denomination, dare i say, “one religion”?) of looking at everything in the world.

Mark 9:38-41

38″Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39″Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

In America (sorry if you aren’t American, but I can only speak to my own national experience!), with the rise of individualism, many people become frightened in conflict. They want to know the truth and feel like they have the truth but when someone challenges “their truth”, they either retract because they don’t want “their truth” to be wrong or they get loud and angry ( just watch pundit shows on Fox or CNN).

Does God become revealed in only one truth? God is the One and Only Truth, Amen and Alleluia! But is God’s revelation of God’s glory only through a particular set of ways of interpreting the world? Or are these interpretations of the world really OUR interpretations that are comfortable for OURSELVES, not what God wants for us? Is God truly calling for war in Iraq? Is God calling for a particular style of worship? Is God calling for the condemnation of certain groups of people? Or are we rebellious against God when we don’t heed God’s call to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly” (Micah 6:8)? When do we let “ourselves” get in the way of what God is yearning for us?

Are we running to Jesus when confronted with others who are doing the work of Christ? Do we get too caught up in “Jesus”,the man, and forget Christ, the divine and loving manifestation of God who came as one of us (in Jesus) to heal us?

Do we expect that if Christ came again, Christ would have to be Anabaptist?

What is the beauty of God: one way of looking at the world, or many different ways of coming to the Truth of God?

Ask yourself today and in the coming days:
When do I submit to God’s will in my life?
When do I let myself “decide” what the will of God is?
Are others “wrong” if they don’t see things my way?
How do I understand when something is “wrong”?
When is my understanding of God helpful, and when it is harmful?

Prayer:
Heavenly Lord, Most Precious, Loving, and Merciful, we thank You for the many ways that You yearn for Us, that You reveal Yourself to us, even when we fall short of You. When we look around at all the different ways that people practice and live, Lord, we thank You for the beauty of that diversity. We pray, Lord, that You will not let us become too bound up in this world, in this life, and in these ways of thinking, and neglect the building of Your kingdom. Be with us to show us where and how You are revealing Yourself to us so that we may nurture Your Kingdom on this earth. Amen.

Given how often times people tend to became legalistic in our faith, dwindling it down to only ways to act and look, I often find this quote from Micah to be very liberating, especially given how often people condemn and oppress particular groups without much basis.

I also think it is at the heart of some of what Joe was trying to get across.

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.